radiant_wave_reverse_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation (finding names) and does not mention any side effects, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not detailed; it could disclose that it returns a list or that results are limited by the limit parameter.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 straightforward reverse lookup, the description is sufficient. It lacks an output schema, but the return (a list of WAVE names) is implied. It does not specify error cases or edge conditions, but given the low complexity, this is acceptable.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents address and limit. The description adds minimal value beyond implying address is the owner, which is already clear from the schema. No additional parameter-level semantics are provided.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'WAVE names' scoped to an owner address. It is concise and unambiguous, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like radiant_resolve_wave_name (which does the opposite mapping). Still, the purpose is evident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the reverse lookup to radiant_resolve_wave_name, nor does it describe any prerequisite or context such as 'use this to list all names held by an address'.

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