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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reads from Base's L2 Resolver text records, requires no wallet or API key, and describes the x402 pricing model including the prepaid header and free daily allowance. This goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides supporting details about data sources, use-case context, input requirements, and pricing. It is longer than strictly necessary, with slight redundancy between 'Full onchain identity' and 'complete Base identity,' but every sentence contributes useful information and there is 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with a rich output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, where the data comes from, the input format, authentication requirements, pricing, and the use case it serves. Nothing essential is missing.

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 `name` parameter is already described as 'Basename or address.' The description reinforces this by saying 'Required input: name' and by elaborating that the tool resolves either a Basename or address, but it does not add substantial format or syntax details beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Resolves') and clearly defines the resource: the complete Base onchain identity behind a Basename or address. It enumerates the resolved fields (avatar, description, website, social handles), which distinguishes it from simpler name-resolution tools like basename or ens_resolve.

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 provides clear context for when to use it — turning a counterparty address into a real human/entity profile beyond just a name. It also positions the tool relative to address-trust, saying it complements verification with human context, which helps an agent choose between them. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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