get_expiring_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the three statuses, notes that grace/premium results are validated against on-chain state, states that renewed/released names are filtered out, and clarifies that statuses here are more reliable than the EXPIRED flag in search results. It also mentions conditional result fields (premiumEth when on-chain read landed), going beyond basic mutation/read hints.

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 well-structured with a bolded purpose statement, bullet-pointed statuses, and a clear alternative callout. It is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful context (status semantics, validation, result fields, filters, alternative). No filler.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential behavioral and result information (premiumUsd, premiumEth, firstYearEth), explains the reliability of statuses, and provides guidance on filtering and alternatives. It addresses the tool's complexity (9 params) comprehensively within the description itself.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces filter support (length/charType/category/dictionary) but adds little beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions. It does clarify the meaning of statuses, but that info is also in the schema. No contradictions, but no significant added value.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+scope: 'List ENS names by lifecycle window' and immediately labels itself 'THE tool for' premium, grace, and expiring names, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling search_ens_names. The final sentence explicitly separates this from pattern/price/theme queries.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('which names are in premium / on Dutch auction', 'names in grace period', 'what's expiring soon / about to drop') and explicitly names the alternative: 'Use search_ens_names for pattern/price/theme queries instead.' This provides strong usage context.

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