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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the reverse-lookup and text-record behavior but says nothing about unresolvable-name errors, latency/rate limits, or how text records are requested.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Also retrieves text records' is slightly unearned since no input parameter supports that path, but it is not verbose.

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?

An output schema exists and the single input parameter is fully documented, so return values need no explanation. The definition is nearly complete; it only omits error behavior for unresolvable names and how text records are selected.

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% with a single well-documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, and it introduces a 'text records' capability with no corresponding parameter, leaving an unresolved ambiguity.

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 (ENS names/addresses) with both directions made explicit, plus the text-record capability. No sibling tool overlaps this function, so the agent can identify it immediately.

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?

Usage is implied by the resolver semantics and the 'forward or reverse' phrasing tells the agent both directions are accepted by the same input. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no rule for how the auto-detection between name and address works.

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