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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds only the 'imported' precondition, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about failure modes or lookup precedence, and an output schema covers return values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, and both lookup forms in one breath. Nothing is wasted.

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 lookup tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gaps are edge behavior: what a miss returns and which key wins when several are provided.

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 0% and all three parameters are optional, so the description carries the burden. It adds real meaning by grouping chain_id with token_id as a pair versus bridge_did as a standalone key — information the flat schema does not convey.

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 gives a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('imported ERC-8004 registration'), and names the two lookup keys. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_registrations or describe_agent, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

'by bridge DID or by (chain_id, token_id)' implies the two mutually exclusive lookup modes, and 'imported' hints that the registration must already exist via import_registration. However, it never states precedence when both forms are supplied, nor what happens on a miss.

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