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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by framing the tool as a static 'free guide' rather than a live query. It also discloses a scope boundary (which chains Brük does not read), which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the most decision-relevant fact ('Free guide, not a live check') and then lists coverage. No filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what content the guide contains. Naming the specific alternative live-check tool would make it fully complete.

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 mention of 'how to pass an MPT issuance id' is guidance about another flow rather than a parameter of this tool, but it is informative and not misleading.

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 resource (XRP Ledger token types Brük can identify) and enumerates the guide's coverage: token types, how to pass an MPT issuance id, and unsupported chains. It also distinguishes itself from the live-check siblings by declaring 'not a live check,' though it never names token_check directly.

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?

'Free guide, not a live check' gives a clear condition for selection: use this for reference rather than for validating a specific token. The alternative (a live check such as token_check) is implied but not named, so the routing is clear without being fully explicit.

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