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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context—searching by handle/display name and returning public EVM/Solana addresses—but does not detail match semantics, ordering, or result limits beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concise sentences: the first defines the action and scope, the second lists return values and the intended use case. There is no filler, repetition of schema constraints, or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity, 2-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers the return values and the core use case. The only noticeable gap is not clarifying the relationship or difference from swop_lookup_identity, but that does not prevent a safe and correct invocation.

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: 'query' and 'limit' both have explicit descriptions explaining meaning and constraints. The tool description only reiterates 'handle or display name' and adds no additional format or behavior details, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Swop user identities (swop.ids)') and lists concrete return fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool swop_lookup_identity, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use this to find a user or resolve a name to a wallet address.' However, it does not mention when to prefer alternatives like swop_lookup_identity, so it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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