UluVoiMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source ('static registry') and implies read-only behavior, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or response format. While it adds some context, it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or return values. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets minimum viability with clear gaps.

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 documents the single parameter 'address' adequately. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 ('look up well-known enVoi names') and resource ('associated with a Voi address from the static registry'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'resolve_name' by specifying the static registry source and mentioning an alternative for live resolution, making the purpose distinct and 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('from the static registry') and when not to ('For live resolution, use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools'). It clearly differentiates this tool from alternatives, including sibling tools like 'resolve_name', by specifying the context and naming an external alternative, ensuring proper tool selection.

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