zunivo_resolve_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that resolution is on-chain, the output fields, and accepted input forms. However, it omits any mention of network requirements, failure modes, or limitations of the accepted shorthand forms.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose and key input variation are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only resolution tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and the accepted input formats. A small gap is the lack of return structure or error behavior, but this is acceptable for such a simple tool.

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 schema already documents the single `name` parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds the accepted variants ('data.agent', '@data', 'data'), which goes beyond the schema's '.agent name to resolve'. This materially helps the agent format input correctly.

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 identifies the exact resource ('.agent name' → 'on-chain agent card') plus the key output fields. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like zunivo_list_agents or zunivo_paid_fetch.

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?

It implies this tool is for resolving a specific agent name, and even gives accepted input formats, but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives or states when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a single-purpose lookup, but not fully explicit.

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