resolve_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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, efficient sentence that packs essential information: action, resource, domain types, and implementation method. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core functionality but lacks important operational context. It doesn't describe what the tool returns (address format, error responses) or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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% with the single parameter 'domain' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high 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 clearly states the specific action ('resolve'), target resource ('blockchain domain name'), and implementation details ('using Pocket Network endpoints'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_domain_records' and 'reverse_resolve_domain' by focusing on domain-to-address resolution.

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 context by specifying domain types (ENS .eth or Unstoppable Domains) and the resolution purpose, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'reverse_resolve_domain' or 'get_domain_records'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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