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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Resolve' correctly implies a read-only lookup and it usefully discloses that output includes proxy and verification details, but it says nothing about failure modes (unknown name, ambiguous match), chain scope, or caching/auth behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, scope, and identifier forms, plus the value-add about proxy/verification metadata. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 1-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input side and hints at the return shape (proxy, verification). It stops short of describing not-found/ambiguity behavior or which networks are searched, leaving gaps an agent would want.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'Contract id, name, or address.' The description merely echoes those accepted forms and adds the 'one' (single-lookup) constraint, so the 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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (one stake.link contract) with the accepted identifier forms. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like sdl_get_contract_abi and sdl_get_contract_source by promising proxy and verification details, but never explicitly contrasts itself with those tools.

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 identifier forms ('by name, id, or address') imply this is the general lookup entry point, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer sdl_get_contract_abi or sdl_get_contract_source, and no stated prerequisites.

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