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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by describing how unregistered names return exists=false with status not_registered, and expired names return status expired with the real expiry date. This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies edge-case behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently covers edge-case behavior in two additional sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose and important edge cases. The availability of an output schema means return-value details are already structured, and annotations cover safety. Nothing critical is missing, though it does not address sibling relationships or usage exclusions.

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%, and the input schema fully documents the 'name' parameter with examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'a Doichain name', specifying the fields returned (value, owner address, expiry). It is clear and informative, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_name_expiry or get_name_history, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_name_expiry or search_names. The description gives context about unregistered/expired name statuses but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria for this tool over its siblings.

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