resolve_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the execution method ('using Pocket Network endpoints'), which adds useful context about external dependencies. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like error conditions (e.g., what happens for invalid domains), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the resolved address will be in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys all essential information without waste. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place in the description.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (domain resolution with external dependencies), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and execution method but lacks details about return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints. The description does enough to distinguish this tool from siblings but doesn't provide complete operational guidance.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'domain' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 specific action ('resolve'), the resource ('blockchain domain name'), and the scope (ENS .eth or Unstoppable Domains). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reverse_resolve_domain' by specifying directionality and from 'get_domain_records' by focusing on address resolution rather than broader record retrieval.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: for resolving blockchain domains to addresses. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'reverse_resolve_domain' (which goes from address to domain) and 'validate_address' (which doesn't involve domain resolution). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention all relevant alternatives.

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