enumerate_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that labels are generated and spell-verified server-side, that results are grouped by status, and that each entry includes the proper name alongside the ENS label. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or edge cases, but for this tool the key behaviors are explained.

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 longer than a typical one-liner but every sentence earns its place: it defines the tool, lists use cases, gives exclusions, and describes the return format. The use of 'USE THIS' and 'DO NOT' headers improves scanability. Slightly verbose but well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what it returns, and how it differs from siblings. It could mention potential limitations (e.g., large categories, timing) but is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including descriptions, enums, and guidance on the 'category' parameter (e.g., strip qualifiers). The tool description reinforces these with examples but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific, well-defined action: 'Enumerate ENS-friendly labels for a finite real-world entity category... and report which are available vs registered.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_ens_names and check_availability, and the examples ('NBA hall of fame players', 'Pixar feature films') leave no ambiguity about what it does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('USE THIS for queries like...'), when not to use it ('DO NOT use for vibes/themes... or ENS-native categories'), and names the alternatives ('use search_ens_names... use check_availability'). It even warns against manually enumerating names and passing them to check_availability, giving clear behavioral rules.

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