lookup_bns_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Resolve' implies a read-only lookup, but nothing states what happens when the name is unregistered or malformed, or whether the lookup is cached/live. For a simple read this is minimally sufficient, not rich.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second sentence is unrelated promotional content that does not help an agent invoke this tool and dilutes focus.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have said what comes back (a Stacks address, presumably, and an error/empty state for unregistered names) but does not. Schema fully covers the single input, so the gap is limited to return and failure behavior.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, including the example format ('alice.btc' or 'alice'). The description adds no syntax or normalization detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource with an explicit direction: resolve a .btc name to a Stacks address. This implicitly separates it from the sibling reverse_bns_lookup, but the sibling is never named and nearby tools like get_bns_info and check_bns_availability are not distinguished.

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 on when to use this versus reverse_bns_lookup, get_bns_info, or check_bns_availability, and no prerequisites. The only 'tip' points at an unrelated sibling (earning_opportunities) rather than a genuine alternative for this operation.

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