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

Explicitly discloses a hidden side effect: resolving a recipient without a wallet provisions one, so the operation is read-only for the caller but not the recipient. This directly pre-empts the readOnlyHint=true annotation and tells the agent about state mutation on the other party, which annotations alone conceal. Retry-on-processing semantics add further behavioral value.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the critical side-effect caveat and the retry rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what comes back. It hints at a status field ('processing') but never describes the returned wallet/status shape, leaving a small gap. The mutation caveat and retry rule cover the highest-risk unknowns for this one-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the recipients array and its fields. The description adds only a conceptual gloss ('social identities') without syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (resolve) and resource (social identities → EVM/Solana wallet addresses), so the agent immediately knows what it does. It is clearly distinguishable from generic lookup siblings, though it never names connect_lookup_exposed, which is the closest relative.

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 one concrete operational rule — 'if status is processing, retry the same payload' — which is useful invocation guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over connect_lookup_exposed or any other sibling, and no exclusions are given, so usage is only partially addressed.

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