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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it classifies and checks existence, but does not disclose what happens for invalid, malformed, or non-existent identifiers, nor what the output shape is.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the accepted inputs, and the secondary behavior, so every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required string parameter), the description is reasonably complete: it defines the input space and the tool's core purpose. The lack of an output schema means return-value behavior is not documented, and the description could go further on error/not-found semantics, but for a simple resolver the essential calling information is present.

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 schema only provides type and length constraints. The description adds needed semantic meaning by enumerating accepted identifier forms: address, transaction hash, block number, and 4-byte selector. It does not specify exact formats such as 0x-prefix requirements, but it substantially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('classifies') plus a concrete set of resource types ('address, transaction hash, block number, or 4-byte selector') and adds the existence-check behavior. It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_selector or get_transaction; it relies on the reader to infer the difference.

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 the tool: when a caller has a Wanchain identifier of an ambiguous type and wants it classified or checked for existence. However, it does not state exclusions or point to alternatives, such as using lookup_selector specifically for selectors or get_transaction when transaction details are needed.

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