erc8004__resolve_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only lookup operation ('resolve'), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what happens on failure, or any authentication requirements. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter usage, but given the absence of an output schema, annotations, and required parameters, additional details would be helpful—such as required parameter combinations, error behavior, and return format. The tool is not fully self-contained for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema's plain property titles by explaining that bridge_did can be used alternatively to the chain_id+token_id pair. However, it does not specify that the combination is required or whether they are mutually exclusive. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 action ('resolve'), the resource ('imported ERC-8004 registration'), and the two methods of identification ('by bridge DID or by (chain_id, token_id)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like erc8004__import_registration and identity__resolve_agent through specificity to ERC-8004.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., identity__resolve_agent), nor are there prerequisites or restrictions mentioned. The description implies usage for resolving imported registrations but does not state when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling.

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