search_account_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state the core behavior: it resolves an identifier to a wallet address. It leaves important traits unstated, though: whether the lookup is an exact resolve or a fuzzy search (the word 'search' suggests one thing, 'for the given identifier' another), what happens when nothing matches, and whether ENS resolution involves network calls or latency.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence partly restates the first's implication, but the definition is still well within an appropriate size.

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 lookup with a fully described schema and no output schema, stating the return value covers a lot. It still omits not-found behavior and match semantics, which are exactly the details an agent needs before calling a 'search' tool that returns a single address.

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%, and the schema already says the identifier is 'typically an ens address' with an example, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, normalization, or matching semantics beyond what the schema field documents.

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?

It states a concrete verb and resource ('Search for account addresses by ENS name or identifier') and the return ('wallet address'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It falls short of a 5 because it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_account_info, which an agent could plausibly pick for the same account lookup.

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 input domain ('ENS name or identifier') implies when the tool applies, which is the definition of implied usage. It never says when to prefer this over get_account_info or search_atoms, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, so routing between siblings is left to guesswork.

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