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

It adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Resolving a recipient who has no wallet provisions one for them, so this is read-only for the caller but not for the recipient' and the retry instruction. This enriches the idempotentHint/readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them.

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: it leads with the purpose, then the side-effect caveat, then the retry condition. Each sentence adds distinct practical value 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?

With no output schema, the description mentions a `status` field and mentions 'processing', but it does not describe the shape of the response (e.g., how the resolved wallet addresses are returned). Given the real side-effect and open-world behavior, a slightly richer description of the expected result would make the tool more complete.

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?

The input schema fully covers the `recipients` parameter and its nested fields per the 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add anything about the parameters themselves, so a 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 identifies the action ('Resolve social identities to EVM and Solana wallet addresses') and names the resource and output. However, it does not differentiate this from the close sibling `connect_lookup_exposed` or explain difference between them.

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 gives practical advice ('If status is processing, retry the same payload') and implies a side effect (provisions a wallet for recipients), which informs when it is appropriate to call. But it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like `connect_lookup_exposed`.

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