dero_name_to_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: case-sensitivity on the daemon side, the meaning of topoheight=-1 for latest registry state, and the NOT_FOUND error surfacing as _meta.error. This is richer than typical read-only descriptions.

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-organized with clear labels ('When to call', 'Input Requirements', 'Output'), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence carries essential information. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies input requirements, output shape ({ name, address }), and error behavior, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results 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%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds value by emphasizing name non-emptiness as CRITICAL, clarifying case-sensitive resolution, and explaining the daemon-side behavior. These details supplement the schema's basic type and description fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and names the exact resource (DERO on-chain registered name to address) plus the underlying RPC method (DERO.NameToAddress). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dero_decode_proof_string or address-fetching tools.

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 when to call: when a user supplies a human-readable name instead of a dero1.../deto1... address. This gives the agent a clear decision rule with concrete examples and leaves no ambiguity about applicability.

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