reverse_resolve_address

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

With no annotations, the description must carry transparency weight. It discloses that the lookup is from a static registry, implying a read-only operation, but does not detail failure behavior, result shape, or any edge cases. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences, directly stating the tool's function and providing an alternative for live resolution. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and a key behavioral trait (static registry). It doesn't explicitly state return values, but 'look up names' implies the output. Missing some detail but essentially complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with the address parameter clearly described as 'Algorand wallet address to reverse-resolve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 looks up well-known Algorand names for an address, specifying the resource (names) and verb (look up). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it uses a static registry, and contrasts with live resolution alternatives, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance to use UluCoreMCP or NFDomains API for live resolution, implying this tool is for static registry lookups. It doesn't explicitly mention sibling tools like resolve_name, but the static vs. live distinction gives clear usage context.

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