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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the monetary cost ($0.005 USDC on Base via x402), which is critical behavioral context an agent cannot infer elsewhere. It stops short of describing the payment/settlement flow or the failure mode for unregistered names.

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: purpose and return values first, accepted input formats second, cost last. The parenthetical field list packs return-value detail without a separate sentence, and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return fields explicitly and discloses cost. The one gap is error behavior for unregistered or malformed names, which matters for an agent deciding whether to retry.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by spelling out the three accepted input forms ("jesse", "jesse.base", "jesse.base.eth"), which is more concrete than the schema's regex pattern and tells the agent normalization is handled.

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 (Basename / name.base.eth) and specifies the return payload: Base address plus profile records. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling eth_resolve_ens by naming the Base chain and .base.eth suffix convention.

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 description implies when to use it (whenever a .base.eth name must become an address) but never explicitly names the alternative tool or states exclusions, e.g. what to do for ENS names (eth_resolve_ens). Usage is inferable from the naming convention rather than stated.

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