Resolve name

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses concrete behaviors: unresolvable names return null with a `name_note` explaining why, and malformed names produce errors. The identity warning is exceptional, informing the agent that SuiNS names are self-chosen, unverified, and potentially deceptive — critical context for an investigative tool.

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 primary purpose and parameter constraint, then immediately covers edge cases and the identity warning. Every sentence earns its place: the warning, while long, is essential behavioral context that prevents misuse. No redundancy or 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 two-mode lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: input requirements, return behavior (null vs error), and the trust implications of SuiNS names. The network parameter is fully specified in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke and interpret this tool 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by stating the mutual exclusivity constraint (at least one of name/address) and clarifying edge-case behavior for the 'name' parameter, which goes beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 a specific action: resolve a SuiNS name to an address or reverse-lookup an address to a name. It names the resource (.sui domain) and the two modes (forward/reverse), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object or identify_address without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly states that at least one of 'name' or 'address' must be provided, which is a key usage constraint. It also describes valid vs invalid inputs (registered/expired names resolve to null, malformed names are errors). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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