agent_resolve_username

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the data is public, that no content encryption applies, and that returned content is untrusted and must not be followed as instructions. It stops short of covering error behavior, rate limits, or explicit side-effect guarantees, but the safety disclosure is substantial.

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?

Three sentences are used efficiently: purpose first, then trust and safety context. No sentence is redundant, and the critical warning about untrusted content is front-loaded after the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, the input schema is fully documented, and an output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated. The description supplies the essential contextual warning about untrusted public data, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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% and the single parameter's '@ prefix optional' detail is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 ('Resolve') and resource ('relay @username') and states the output ('DID and public keys'), making the tool's function unambiguous. Although it does not name a specific sibling it differs from, its purpose is sharply distinct from the surrounding identity, messaging, and verification 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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the stated purpose, leaving the agent to infer the context on its own.

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