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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of non-obvious context — that the lookup is 'Free' — which affects whether an agent should hesitate to call it. It does not disclose rate limits, whether failures are distinguishable from non-existent names, or what a mismatched pair returns.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core behaviour comes first, followed by the dual-parameter mode, then the cost note. The opening fragment is slightly awkward but costs the reader nothing.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers direction of resolution and match validation. It leaves open what is returned (a name, an address, a boolean?) and what happens when neither parameter is supplied, which matters since nothing is required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name format, account prefix) are fully documented in structured data and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the semantic that supplying both triggers a match check, which is modest added value.

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 states the resource (a keeta.xyz name / Keeta address) and the operation (bidirectional resolution), which is specific enough that an agent knows exactly what it does. It loses a point because the sentence is a fragment with no verb and never names a sibling tool it might be confused with.

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?

'Pass both to check they still match' is genuine usage guidance for the two-parameter mode, which is more than most tools get. However, it never says when to prefer this over neighbours like get_directory or quote_address_check, and gives no guidance for the zero-argument case even though required parameters is 0.

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