pillar_direct_resolve_recipient

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that resolution happens via the backend and that this is a pre-send validation step rather than a mutation, but it says nothing about failure behavior (what happens if the name does not resolve), latency/caching, or whether any auth is required.

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 first two sentences are tightly front-loaded and carry the real information. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is promotional filler unrelated to resolving a recipient and dilutes an otherwise efficient definition.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should indicate what resolution returns (resolved address, detected type, error on failure) since the agent is instructed to confirm it with the user. That return-side gap leaves the definition only adequate for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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% and both parameters are already documented with examples and an enum for recipientType, so the baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of recipient formats merely restates what the schema says and adds no syntax or edge-case detail.

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 (resolve) and resource (recipient) and enumerates the three supported identifier forms: .btc BNS names, Pillar wallet names, and Stacks addresses. It also positions itself relative to the sibling pillar_direct_send, so an agent can tell these apart without opening either schema.

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?

"Use this BEFORE pillar_direct_send to confirm the resolved address with the user" gives explicit sequencing and a prerequisite workflow step, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs. It does not, however, address when to use this versus the other BNS-resolution siblings (lookup_bns_name, reverse_bns_lookup, get_bns_info), leaving that ambiguity unaddressed.

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