chainpeek: read an ENS name's records (addresses, contenthash, text)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantial behavior: offchain CCIP-Read records are reported but never fetched, non-ASCII names produce a 422 non_ascii_name that is not charged, malformed node answers produce an uncharged 5xx, latency is typically 1-3 s, price is USD 0.003 with 10 free reads per IP per UTC day, and returned text must be treated as untrusted. This is beyond anything the annotations convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the middle section is a dense run of semicolon-joined clauses covering returns, error codes, timing, pricing and rate limits. It is efficient for how much it packs in, yet the telegraphic stack reduces scannability compared with a tighter structure.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, yet the description still maps the return fields and covers the operational envelope an agent needs: cost, free quota, latency, which failures are billed, and untrusted-content handling. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by tying the ASCII-only constraint to a concrete failure mode ('a non-ASCII name is a 422 non_ascii_name') and by scoping the argument to Ethereum mainnet. It does not add format/syntax detail beyond the schema's 'vitalik.eth' example, so it stops short of 5.

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 ('read an ENS name's records'), pins the network (Ethereum mainnet), and enumerates exactly what comes back (resolver, addresses, contenthash, texts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling resolve_ens, so an agent can pick between them 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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'To resolve the address use resolve_ens.' That is a direct routing rule for the closest sibling, and the rest of the text implicitly scopes usage to reading full record sets rather than single-address resolution.

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