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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the disclosure that results carry a tier distinguishing verified-ABI matches from heuristic-table matches — important for trusting the output. It does not say what happens on a miss or how unambiguous the heuristic tier is, which keeps it below 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that delivers purpose and the meaning of the tier field with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does name the three meaningful outputs (name, signature, tier). It stops short of covering the unresolved-selector case or the accepted input format, which are the remaining gaps for a one-parameter lookup.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partly does: '4-byte function selector' implies a hex selector value but never specifies 0x-prefixing, casing, or whether an 8-character hex string is required. That is thin for the single parameter the tool depends on.

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 and resource: resolves a 4-byte function selector to name and signature. It is clearly distinct from the address/transaction-oriented siblings, though it does not differentiate itself from the potentially confusable resolve_identifier.

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 is a pure definition with no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as resolve_identifier or get_verified_contract. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the name.

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