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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost ('Free') and the shape of what comes back (payment history, risk score range, tier, hash), which is real context. But it says nothing about whether the wallet must exist, behavior for unknown wallets, auth needs, rate limits, or freshness of the data.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists contents. Every clause carries information; there is 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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields compensates well for the missing schema. The remaining gap is the wallet value format and lookup-failure behavior, which matters given no annotations exist to cover it.

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 0% for the single required 'wallet' parameter. The phrase 'for any XRPL wallet' adds some meaning — it signals the value is an XRPL wallet identifier rather than an arbitrary string — but it does not give address format (e.g., r-address) or validation expectations.

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?

States a specific resource (Agent Passport) scoped to any XRPL wallet, and enumerates the payload (payment history, risk score 0-100, loyalty tier, passport hash). This is clear and content-rich. However, it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like bureau_full_report, bureau_public_score, or check_loyalty, which cover much of the same ground.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. With siblings like bureau_full_report and check_loyalty that clearly overlap on risk score and loyalty tier, the agent is left to guess which tool to pick. The enumerated payload implies usage but does not state it.

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