resolve_ens_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core operation and does not disclose behaviors like network default handling, failure cases for invalid names, or return format details. This is a significant gap for a resolver tool.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is immediately scannable and easy to parse.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should clarify return values or edge cases, but it does not. It does state the output type (Ethereum address), which is helpful, but it omits potential errors and behavior nuances. This is adequate but 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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (name and network) with descriptions, including a default for network. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('an ENS name') and output ('to its Ethereum address'). This directly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like 'reverse_resolve_address' and other ENS tools.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to resolve an ENS name to an address), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions, such as using reverse_resolve_address for the opposite lookup. There is no exclusion context or comparison with sibling tools.

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