get_name_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses a nuanced behavior: creationDate is always populated and its meaning varies for Vickrey-era names (true first-creation date from legacy auction) versus on-chain registration date. It also instructs the agent to always surface creationDate, which is valuable behavioral guidance beyond the raw data.

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 two sentences: the first concisely lists the data returned, the second explains a subtle data nuance and provides an explicit usage instruction. No words are wasted, and key information is 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?

The description enumerates all major return categories (owner, expiry, creation date, tags, active listings with ETH/USD prices, active offers, ENSIP-25 bindings, ENSIP-26 records) and explains the creationDate edge case. With no output schema, this adequately covers what the agent needs to know about the return value.

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 with a description for the single 'name' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('full details for a specific ENS name') while enumerating the exact data returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_ens_names (searching) and get_valuation (valuation only).

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: to retrieve full details for a specific ENS name. It doesn't explicitly reference alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools. It also includes a direct instruction to always mention creationDate when answering creation/registration questions, which guides usage.

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