batch_resolve_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and does not mention batch size limits, behavior on invalid addresses, partial failure handling, or output format. For a batch tool, this is a significant absence of information.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite the tool's simple surface, it is a batch operation lacking details about limits, error handling, and return values. No output schema exists, so the description should at least hint at the expected result structure. The lack of differentiation from the single-address sibling also leaves a completeness gap.

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 documents the 'addresses' parameter as 'Array of Ethereum addresses' with 100% coverage. The description's 'multiple addresses' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Reverse resolve' with a clear resource ('multiple addresses to ENS names'), and the 'multiple' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling tool reverse_resolve_address. This is a clear and accurate statement of purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the existence of reverse_resolve_address for single addresses, the description should explicitly mention that this tool is for batch operations. The absence of any usage context or comparison to siblings is a clear gap.

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