crypto.ens-resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses bidirectional resolution, multiple return fields (avatar, email, etc.), and the limitation about on-chain lookups. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 sentences with no irrelevant details; the first sentence states the core functionality and the second lists additional returns and a key constraint. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple resolution tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, bidirectional use, additional fields, and a limitation. It could mention error handling but is sufficient for most use 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?

The single parameter 'query' is described in the schema as 'ENS name or 0x address', and the description adds an example and clarifies forward/reverse behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra value 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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves ENS names to addresses and vice versa, with specific examples and additional return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto.address-validate and crypto.gas-oracle.

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 specifies the context (live on Ethereum mainnet) and notes that on-chain lookup agents cannot perform this from a sandbox, effectively guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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