reverse_resolve_address

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the tool uses a static registry and returns well-known names, implying read-only and potentially outdated data. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or what happens if no name is found, leaving some transparency 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, zero fluff. First sentence states the action and resource, second gives explicit alternative. Extremely concise 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?

Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke the tool: it specifies the source (static registry), the input (address), and the purpose (names lookup). The only gap is exact return shape, but for such a simple tool it's sufficiently complete.

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 already provides complete coverage for the address parameter with clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed for a single, self-explanatory parameter. 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 uses the specific verb 'look up' with a clear resource ('well-known Algorand names from the static registry') and explicitly contrasts with live resolution, distinguishing it from sibling resolve_name. It clearly states the tool's 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 (for static/well-known name lookup) and provides alternatives for live resolution (UluCoreMCP or NFDomains API), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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