resolve_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that parsing is 'best-effort' and that exactly one selector is required, which is useful. However, it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or what error behavior to expect, leaving a transparency gap.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a critical usage constraint. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return values and behavioral context. It mentions identity fields plus endpoints/capabilities, but does not specify the structure or any potential error cases. While the core is covered, the lack of detail on the return format and edge cases leaves it incomplete.

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 documents only the chain parameter (33% coverage), leaving agentId and ownerAddress undescribed. The description compensates by explaining that one of these two selectors must be provided, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not detail output fields, but the selector constraint is well covered.

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 tool resolves an ERC-8004 agent by a specific selector (agentId or ownerAddress) and returns parsed identity fields plus endpoints/capabilities. This is a specific verb+resource with scope, and the mention of 'parsed from its registration file' distinguishes it from a simple file fetcher.

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 includes the important usage constraint 'exactly one selector', which guides parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like get_registration_file or search_agents, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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