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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: deprecation status, the replacement tool's advantages, the inclusion of escrowed tokens in total supply, and the caveat that wallet labels reflect owner-confirmed declared roles only.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the deprecation warning and replacement recommendation, then proceeds to the stats returned and a caveat about wallet labels. Every sentence carries information relevant to an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values. It lists the key metrics and a wallet-label caveat, but does not fully specify formatting details such as whether values are exact decimal strings, degraded codes, or tied to a validated ledger index—though it implies those features belong to the replacement.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 states a specific read operation and resource: current on-chain stats for the ASTEROID token on the XRP Ledger. It enumerates the exact metrics returned and explicitly names the sibling replacement, get_supply_state, making it easy to distinguish from alternatives.

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 first sentence directly marks the tool as deprecated and instructs use of get_supply_state instead. It also explains why the replacement is preferable by listing its validated ledger index, per-value claim statuses, exact decimal strings, and degraded codes.

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