resolve_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose useful context: the lookups come from a static registry and return address plus metadata. However, it does not mention error behavior for unknown names, whether the operation is read-only, or any edge-case limitations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no empty filler. The first sentence states purpose; the second provides a crucial alternative, so every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the key points: what it resolves, where from, and the return type (address + metadata). It lacks edge-case handling and metadata structure, but is otherwise adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully describes the 'name' parameter with an example, and the description repeats the same example without adding extra format constraints, case sensitivity, or name-validation rules. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3 and the description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource (enVoi name) and outcome (address and metadata from the static registry). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating static vs. live resolution and by the direction of resolution (name→address, versus reverse_resolve_address).

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (for static registry lookups) and provides an explicit alternative for live resolution ('use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools'). This gives the agent actionable guidance on tool selection.

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