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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world traits, yet the description discloses substantive behavior: the four possible `status` values with their meanings, the warning that an expired record's target address must not be trusted, the counter-intuitive fact that reverse resolution returns the address's own default name, and that results are never capped or paged. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact block on the status field's interpretation. Every sentence adds information the agent needs — status semantics, the forward/reverse asymmetry, and the absence of pagination — with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: a single uncapped record plus the `status` discriminator that governs how to read it. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the response from the description alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does add the mutual-exclusivity rule ('exactly one of name or address') that the schema cannot express since both properties are optional. It reinforces the .sui suffix restriction, though it leaves the hex address format to the schema pattern.

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 names a specific verb (resolve) and resource (SuiNS name / address) and covers both directions of the mapping. It also scopes the domain explicitly with 'Only .sui names', which separates it from the sibling resolveContract 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?

Gives a precise invocation rule — 'Give exactly one of `name` or `address`' — and instructs the caller to read `status` before trusting the record. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer it over siblings such as resolveContract, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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