agentscoin_resolve_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; 'read-only' in the description is therefore redundant. However, 'free' adds genuine value beyond the annotations by signalling zero gas/transaction cost, which meaningfully differentiates it from costly siblings like send, swap, and register_name.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and result, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description adequately covers input expectation and return value ('its address'). It omits not-found/failure behavior, a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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 the schema itself supplies the accepted format example ('myagent' or 'myagent.agent'), so the description need not document the single parameter. It adds no format or normalization details beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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), the resource (.agent name), and the output (its address) in a single clause. An agent can distinguish this read-side lookup from the write-side sibling agentscoin_register_name 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?

The '(free, read-only)' parenthetical implies this is a safe, costless lookup and is the right choice when only an address is needed, but it never explicitly names alternatives such as agentscoin_register_name or states when-not-to-use. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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