lookup_erc8004_agent

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 does imply a read-only operation via 'Look up' and lists return fields, which adds transparency. However, it does not mention edge cases, such as what happens if the token ID does not exist or whether any special permissions are needed, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the output details. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the network, the key input, and the return fields. It could mention error behavior for missing tokens, but the essential context is fully provided given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema description for tokenId already provides full coverage (100%) with an explanation and examples. The tool description merely references the token ID without adding further semantic meaning, 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 clearly states the operation ('Look up an ERC-8004 agent'), the target resource (agent by token ID on Base Mainnet), and the return fields (owner, name, services, x402 support). It is specific and distinct from the sibling tools, which all concern different Base network data.

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 makes the tool's use case obvious by naming the exact entity and network. Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tools are clearly unrelated (gas price, block number, balance), so there is no ambiguity. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions.

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