Find an agent

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds substantive context: batch limit of 25 ids, the ranked-only name matching scope, and the important caveat that a declared name is the agent's own unverified claim — a data-trust warning the annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, zero filler: the lookup verb leads, the accepted forms follow, and the batch limit and name caveat close it out. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to construct a call.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the key fields (ranked status, L0-L9 liveness, bound wallet, float, payment totals, open incidents). It leaves the per-field detail unspecified, but for a single-parameter lookup this is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that name resolution is restricted to ranked agents and that declared names are unverified claims. Those are semantic qualifications of the query parameter not present in the schema's format list.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (ERC-8004 agent on Base) plus the four accepted identifier forms. An agent can distinguish this resolution/lookup tool from siblings like agent_record, ranked_agents, or agent_statement without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete acceptance criteria — token id, slug, wallet, declared name, or up to 25 comma-separated ids — and a scoping rule ('a name is matched among ranked agents only'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when this lookup is preferable to agent_record, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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