Get 8DX Permit Address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' an address, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose whether it requires authentication, has side effects, or returns a specific format beyond the name's implication.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object.

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?

Despite its brevity, the description is sufficient for the tool's simple interface: one fully-specified parameter and a clear result (the permit contract address). It lacks any mention of related tools or return format, but given the low complexity and rich schema, the context is adequately complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'blockchain' parameter, including an enum and description. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Gets the permit contract address for a supported 8DX blockchain.' It uses a specific verb ('gets') and a resource ('permit contract address'), and the scope ('for a supported 8DX blockchain') distinguishes it from other permit-related tools like eightdx_get_permit_data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., eightdx_get_permit_data). It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or context in which another tool would be more appropriate.

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