get_ens_text_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. The verb 'Get' transparently signals a read-only operation, and the examples clarify what data may be returned. However, it does not mention default behavior for the optional 'records' parameter or potential edge cases, though this is not critical for a simple getter.

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, focused sentence of 13 words. It front-loads the core action and resource, with no redundant or extraneous information, achieving high efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, read-only), the description covers the essentials: what it does and what it retrieves. It could be more explicit about the return format or default behavior, but the combination of description and complete schema provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (avatar, twitter, email) that clarify what 'common records' means for the optional 'records' parameter, going slightly beyond the schema's generic description.

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's function with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'text records', with examples 'avatar, twitter, email' that distinguish it from sibling tools like set_ens_records or get_ens_avatar. It unambiguously conveys a read operation for ENS text records.

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 the tool is for fetching text records from an ENS name, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_ens_avatar or get_ens_name_details, nor does it provide exclusions or comparison guidance. Usage is implied rather than explicitly directed.

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