reverse_resolve_address

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 indicates a read operation via 'Get', implying non-destructive behavior, but it does not disclose what happens when an address has no ENS name, network-specific behavior, or error cases. The transparency is minimal but sufficient for a simple read-only 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 front-loads the action and includes a clarifying parenthetical. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description combined with the schema adequately covers what the tool does and its parameters. It does not detail the return format, but 'ENS name' implies a string, and no output schema exists. Minor gaps such as edge cases are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.

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 provides full description coverage for both parameters (address and network), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating the purpose. With 100% schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the tool's function: getting the ENS name for an Ethereum address, explicitly labeling it as a reverse lookup. This distinguishes it from forward resolution tools like resolve_ens_name. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an Ethereum address is known and the corresponding ENS name is desired. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'reverse lookup' phrasing implies a contrast with forward resolution. This is adequate for a straightforward lookup tool.

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