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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: ENS is not deployed on Fuse, resolution requires an external RPC URL, and plain addresses are passed through unchanged. This provides sufficient transparency for safe usage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information (purpose, configuration requirement, pass-through behavior). No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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?

For a simple resolver with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's action, its operational context (ENS not on Fuse, requires config), and edge-case handling (pass-through). No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with a description, and the tool description adds context about the name parameter (e.g., plain addresses are returned unchanged). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying edge-case behavior.

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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves an ENS name to an EVM address, with a specific verb ('resolves') and resource ('ENS name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., fuse_get_balance, fuse_send_native) by focusing on name resolution, not blockchain transactions.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool (resolve ENS name) and that plain hex addresses are passed through unchanged. It mentions a prerequisite (ENS_RPC_URL configuration) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. This is adequate for a straightforward resolver.

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