Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the record-store ordering (free then paid), proxy-implementation verification, that a missing record yields 'status ok' with 'address null', the optional otherChainAddresses field and its on-chain consistency requirement, and that no address is guessed. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core operation and then layered with constraints in a logical order; nearly every sentence carries information. The closing investment-advice disclaimer is boilerplate adjacent to the tool's purpose but is defensible as a guardrail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains the success shape, the null-address case, the unresolved-on-testnet case, and the optional cross-chain field. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: a bare label gets '.qie' appended, and the network is pinned to mainnet/testnet with raw chain IDs or RPC URLs rejected. Only the maxLength/format constraints are left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve a QIE ID ... to its QIE address'), names the input form (yourname.qie) and the chain (1990). The forward-resolution framing distinguishes it implicitly but clearly from the sibling qie_reverse_lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives useful situational context: testnet lookups return 'unresolved' because QIE ID isn't deployed there, and the network parameter is pinned rather than accepting arbitrary RPC/chain IDs. However it never explicitly names qie_reverse_lookup as the alternative for the inverse operation, so sibling selection is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.