api_nfd_get_nfds_for_addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, rate-limited, or requires authentication. It also doesn't describe the return format (e.g., paginated results, error handling), which is critical given the lack of output schema.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and target.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what NFDs are, the response structure, or error conditions. For a lookup tool with multiple parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying an array of addresses is required. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'limit' and 'itemsPerPage' relate) or default values, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Get NFDs for specific addresses' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('NFDs'), with the scope 'for specific addresses' indicating it's a lookup operation. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'api_nfd_get_nfd' (singular) or 'api_nfd_browse_nfds', which might have different use cases.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'api_nfd_get_nfd' (singular lookup) or 'api_nfd_search_nfds' (search-based). It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing valid addresses, or context like network defaults, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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