aqb_is_agent

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does essentially none of it. It does not say what the check returns (boolean, status object, agent record), whether it is a read-only lookup, or what happens for an unregistered or malformed address.

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?

One short sentence with the operation front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it omits the return value semantics entirely. For a simple single-parameter predicate tool this is a notable gap, since knowing whether the result is a boolean or a structured record changes how the agent should act on it.

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 0% for the single required parameter, and the description only restates the word 'address' already present in the schema. It adds no format, chain, or normalization detail (e.g. hex vs. checksummed vs. name) that an agent would need to pass a valid value.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check whether') and a specific resource ('an address is a registered agent'), so the operation is identifiable at a glance. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as aqb_register or aqb_discover, and 'registered agent' is left unqualified, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this lookup versus alternatives like aqb_discover or aqb_wellknown, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the one-line purpose.

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