azeth_get_registry_entry

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

Good: No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses 'read-only and safe', on-chain resolution behavior for addresses, and detailed return structure (name, capabilities, reputation score). Missing error behavior or rate limit disclosures.

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?

Excellent: Well-structured with clear logical sections (Purpose, Usage, Input guidance, Returns, Safety, Example). Front-loaded with core purpose. No redundant text; every sentence adds unique value beyond the schema.

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?

Strong for complexity level: No output schema exists, but description compensates by documenting all return fields. Covers all 3 parameters with chain aliases noted. Would benefit from error case documentation (e.g., 'not found' handling).

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?

Strong: Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds critical semantic constraints beyond schema—the XOR requirement ('Provide EITHER...') and address resolution logic. Includes concrete JSON examples that clarify expected formats.

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?

Excellent: States specific verb 'Look up' + resource 'participant on the trust registry' + exact identifiers 'token ID or smart account address'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling discovery tools by emphasizing 'specific participant' lookup vs broad discovery.

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?

Strong: Contains explicit 'Use this when' clause defining the specific scenario (known address/token ID seeking details). States parameter constraint 'EITHER...OR (at least one required)'. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative siblings (e.g., vs discover_services).

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