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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape and clarifies that purchase_mode is a topology fact rather than a price, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or error behavior when neither/both keys are supplied.

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 the purpose front-loaded, followed by output facts and then the selection constraint. Slightly dense markup but no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully enumerated, yet the description still explains the ambiguous purchase_mode field. For a simple two-parameter lookup the coverage is nearly complete, with only read-only/auth context missing given zero annotations.

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 both parameters are optional with empty-string defaults, so the description compensates meaningfully by stating that exactly one of name or npub must be supplied. It doesn't add format details (e.g. npub encoding) beyond that.

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 (resolve) and resource (DPYC service) plus the two lookup keys, which is enough to distinguish it from list_services and resolve_authority_for. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself against those siblings.

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 gives an invocation constraint ('Supply exactly one of name or npub') but never says when to reach for this tool versus list_services or resolve_authority_for, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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