resolve_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the network (mainnet), which is useful behavioral context, and states the bidirectional capability. However, it doesn't disclose behavior for invalid inputs, reverse-lookup failures, normalization, or response format. For a read-only lookup tool, this is modest but reasonable disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Every sentence earns its place: first states the core bidirectional purpose, second states the network constraint. Very compact and 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with a fully documented schema, the description is reasonably complete. It would benefit from noting the return format (resolved address vs name) and behavior for unresolvable names, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make the current level adequate. A bit more behavioral detail would strengthen it.

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%, and the single 'input' parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description adds that the parameter can be either an ENS name or an address, which complements the schema. With 100% coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds one small clarifying detail but doesn't go beyond the schema materially.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Resolve' with clear resources (ENS name to address, or address to ENS name). Explicitly states it uses Ethereum mainnet ENS registry, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle tx status, gas, balances, etc. The bidirectional nature is stated upfront.

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 implies usage (look up ENS resolution) and specifies mainnet scope, which is a meaningful constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives. Sibling tools are functionally different enough that there's little confusion risk, but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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