UluVoiMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source ('static registry') and output type ('address and metadata'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or whether this requires authentication. For a resolution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and output, second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about scope (static vs live) and output type. However, it doesn't describe the metadata structure or potential error responses, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. Still, it's reasonably complete for its 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'name' parameter. The description adds minimal value by providing an example ('shelly.voi') and clarifying it's an 'enVoi name', but doesn't explain format constraints beyond what the schema implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('resolve'), target resource ('enVoi name'), and output ('address and metadata from the static registry'). It distinguishes from sibling 'reverse_resolve_address' by specifying direction and from 'search_names' by focusing on single resolution. The mention of 'static registry' further clarifies scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('static registry') versus alternatives ('For live resolution, use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools'). This provides clear context for choosing between static and live resolution methods, directly addressing the sibling tool differentiation.

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