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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the direction of the lookup and the acceptable address kinds; it says nothing about empty-result behavior, per-handle metadata, or whether results are paginated/limited. On top of rich annotations, that is adequate but thin.

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 short sentences, zero filler: the resource and scope come first, the disambiguation second. Nothing could be removed without losing routing value.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the agent knows what it queries, what inputs are valid, and which sibling handles the reverse case. The only gap is that the return shape (a bare list of names vs. objects with metadata) is unspecified, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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% and the single parameter carries a pattern plus a description naming addr1…, stake1…, and 56-hex stake key hash. The description restates 'address or stake address' without adding format rules or edge cases beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline-3 behavior when the schema already does the work.

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-equivalent ('held by') and resource ('ADA Handles ($names)') scoped to an address or stake address, immediately clarifying the direction of the lookup. It also names the sibling that does the inverse operation (`resolve_handle`), so the agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 second sentence gives an explicit routing rule: when you know the handle and want the owner, use `resolve_handle`; by implication this tool is for when you have the address. That is clear context for selection, though no explicit exclusions (e.g. what to do if the address owns nothing, or how it relates to `get_address`/`get_wallet`) are stated.

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