Validate BSV Address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the return shape { valid, address } and clarifies that only format is validated, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured with a leading one-sentence summary followed by Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 validation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the purpose, documents the return object, and clarifies the scope ('format'), covering all essential aspects without needing additional detail.

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%, with the parameter 'address' described as 'BSV address to validate' and length constraints 25-35. The description repeats this without adding additional semantic detail, such as examples, accepted character sets, or how the boolean result is determined. 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 clearly states the tool validates a BSV address format, using a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('BSV address'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_check or security_validate_password, and the scope ('format') is 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 implies the tool is used to check the validity of a BSV address format, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as not checking whether the address exists on-chain. The usage context is clear but left implicit.

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