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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world semantics, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses that XRP yields a 400, that transfer fees apply between non-issuer accounts, and what issuer attributes come back. Return shape is left to the output schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload summary, then clearly labeled usage, alternatives, and example segments; no filler. It is slightly long for a one-parameter read tool, but every clause carries routing or error information.

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 an output schema covering returns, full annotation coverage, and 100% parameter documentation, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to call it, when not to, sibling alternatives, and the XRP error condition.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already defines the asset as CODE.issuer and excludes XRP. The description's inline example reinforces the format but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Names the resource (issuer data for an issued asset) and enumerates the specific payload fields (flags, domain, transfer fee, total issued), which is precise enough to separate it from xrpl_account_lines and xrpl_orderbook without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section ties the tool to concrete decisions (verifying issuer existence, freeze state, authorization requirements, transfer fee) and 'Prefer another tool' names three alternatives with the conditions that select them, plus the XRP 400 case.

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