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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial return-level context: availability states, freshness, provenance, schema, limitations, schema version, and canonical asset identity.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that begins with the action and packs in the returned fields without repetition. It is long and somewhat list-heavy, but each element is informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining return contents. It does so thoroughly, covering the entry points, capability catalogue, per-tool states, freshness, provenance, schema, limitations, schema version, and asset identity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter semantics because there are no parameters to describe.

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 and resource: returns authoritative ASTEROID XRPL entry points and a full capability catalogue. It also enumerates the per-tool states and metadata returned, making clear how this discovery tool differs from the get_*/verify_* siblings.

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 as a discovery entry point for ASTEROID capabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus calling sibling data tools directly. No when-not or alternative-based guidance is provided.

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