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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: it is a paid call ($0.003 via x402), supports forward/reverse resolution, and returns address, name, source, forward_verified, and optional avatar. It still omits error/empty-result behavior, rate limits, and payment mechanics beyond the price.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by return fields and price. Every clause adds useful information with no repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description helpfully lists return fields. It also covers payment and supported networks, making it mostly complete for a three-parameter resolver, though it leaves gaps around auto-direction behavior and failure cases.

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 67%; the schema already documents query and request_id. The description adds that input can be an ENS/Basename or address and that direction can be forward or reverse, but it does not explain the default 'auto' behavior or add detail to the idempotency parameter beyond the schema.

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 precise verb (Resolve) and specific resources (ENS .eth on Ethereum, Basenames .base.eth on Base) plus supported directions. It also enumerates result fields, making the operation immediately distinguishable from generic lookup or validation siblings like address_validate.

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 description: use this to resolve names/addresses forward or reverse. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings such as address_validate, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the price.

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