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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers rich behavioral detail: it is live against a validated mainnet ledger, never stale, bounded at ~20s for the default walk, with a coverage field of complete/partial, and a direct-lookup mode that is always fast and complete. It also discloses that the result can be partial for large exchange-scale accounts, which is critical for correct use.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, default behavior, alternative mode, parameter summary, and access requirements. The information is front-loaded and dense without being wordy, and the dash-separated parameter list makes it scannable.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what the response will contain (issuer, type, accepted, expired, expiry date) and the completeness semantics. It covers performance characteristics, the two invocation modes, parameter constraints, and access prerequisites. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and how to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the direct-ledger-lookup behavior for issuer and the conditional requirement for credential_type. The description mostly restates this, adding only minor conveniences like the 'r...' format and 'name or hex'. It does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get every XLS-70 credential an XRPL account holds', and lists the exact attributes returned (issuer, type, acceptance, expiry, expiry date). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issuer_credentials or search_mpts by targeting credentials held by an account rather than issued or listed elsewhere.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this before trusting a counterparty who claims to hold a credential.' It also provides clear routing between the default owner-directory walk and the faster direct lookup when an issuer is passed. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools as exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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