reverse_resolve_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It adds useful context by noting this is a static registry (not live) and limited to well-known names, but it does not disclose error behavior, empty results, or return format.

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 function, and includes an alternative in the second sentence. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 it is a simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the scope (static registry) and offers an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state that the return is a list of names, so a small gap remains.

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 fully documents the single 'address' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, and the baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 it looks up well-known envoi names for a given Voi address from a static registry, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_name by making the reverse direction (address to names) explicit.

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 explicitly provides an alternative: 'For live resolution, use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs to a more appropriate option, exceeding basic expectations.

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