get-all-records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't specify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'all available information' entails (e.g., format, depth). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose ('Get all available information for an ENS name'). It efficiently communicates the essential action and target without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only implied), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It clarifies the purpose and parameter broadly but omits behavioral details and output expectations, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly in complex scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'The ENS name to query'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema adequately covers the basics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Get all available information') and target resource ('for an ENS name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get-text-record' or 'resolve-name', which might retrieve specific subsets of information rather than 'all available' data, but the scope is well-defined.

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 'get-text-record' or 'resolve-name' from the sibling list. It implies usage for comprehensive ENS name data but lacks explicit comparisons, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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