resolve_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the found:false edge case and the two-part return (primary name + owned names). It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or error conditions, but for a read-only lookup these are implied. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 purpose, and includes concrete user phrasings and the found:false edge case. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, return behavior, and edge case. It also mentions chaining with get_domain_profile, adding integration context. The only gap is the exact shape of a found:true response, but the schema's param descriptions compensate.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described inline. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning, and its phrase 'full list' could conflict with the limit parameter's cap. Since the schema already documents parameters, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('reverse resolution') and resource (XRPL address), clearly stating it returns the primary XRPName and the full list of owned names. It distinguishes from siblings like get_domain_profile, which performs forward resolution. This makes the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 lists trigger phrases ('who owns [address]?', 'look up this wallet') and suggests chaining with get_domain_profile for wallet exploration. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like check_domains. This is strong guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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