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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only what the result conceptually is (owner wallet address), and with an output schema present it need not describe return shape. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the routing rule. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, a 100%-documented schema, and an output schema. Purpose, trigger, and alternative are all stated, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 single 'name' parameter already carries the .sol example, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format, normalization, or resolution-failure semantics beyond it.

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?

Specific verb (resolve) plus specific resource (.sol Solana Name Service domain) and the output it yields (owner wallet address). The description also names the sibling sns_reverseLookup as the inverse, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

States the trigger condition explicitly ('when a wallet is named by its .sol domain and you need the address') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('for the reverse direction call sns_reverseLookup'). Both when-to-use and the alternative are covered.

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