resolve_ens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the BSC limitation, which is useful context about network support constraints. However, it doesn't describe what happens on successful resolution (format of returned address), error conditions (invalid ENS names, network errors), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 description is extremely concise - a single sentence with a parenthetical constraint. Every word earns its place: it states the core function and includes a critical limitation. There's no fluff or redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and one important constraint (BSC limitation). However, for a resolution tool that presumably returns address data, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally mention what gets returned. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps about the result format and error 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions ENS names and EVM addresses generally but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or semantic details about the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve an ENS name to an EVM address' - a specific verb (resolve) and resource (ENS name). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning EVM address resolution, which no other tool explicitly does. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from potential similar resolution tools that might exist, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 description provides some usage context with the parenthetical '(not supported on BSC)', which implies when NOT to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when TO use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any of the sibling tools as alternatives for related tasks. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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