dero_durl_to_scid

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. Description adds key behaviors: first call triggers a ~10s one-time discovery scan (cached), dURLs are not unique, collision handling returns newest as primary, and other candidates disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, then usage guidelines, input requirements, and output format. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and it's appropriately detailed for the complexity.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the output format for both hit and miss cases. It mentions related tool (tela_inspect) and caching behavior. Covers all necessary context for correct invocation.

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% but description adds significant value: explains durl is REQUIRED, gives multiple examples, notes case- and prefix-insensitivity, and explicitly excludes registered DERO names. This goes beyond 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 a TELA dURL to on-chain SCID(s), with specific examples like 'vault.tela'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with dero_name_to_address for non-dURL names.

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 explicitly tells when to call (user asks for SCID from dURL) and when not (for registered DERO names, use dero_name_to_address). It also provides routing importance and clarifies input format.

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