SuiNS name and address

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the semantics annotations cannot carry — the four `status` outcomes (resolved, expired, no_target_address, not_registered), the warning that an expired registration's target address must not be trusted as a destination, that all four are answers rather than errors, and that only .sui names are accepted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the constraint, then the status interpretation, then the reverse-name caveat. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on the burden of explaining the return shape by enumerating the `status` values and what each implies about the record. It also closes the pagination question ('nothing is capped, truncated or paged'). Complete for a two-parameter single-record lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents both field formats, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not express: exactly one of the two mutually exclusive parameters must be given, plus which direction each parameter selects. That is real meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific bidirectional verb pair and resource: resolve a .sui name to an address, or an address back to its name. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like resolveContract or rpcCall, which do different work on different entities.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to supply exactly one of `name` or `address`, and warns the agent to read `status` before trusting the record. It also carves out the key trap: reverse is NOT the inverse, an address returns its own default name. This is when-to-use guidance at the level an agent actually needs.

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