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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are served from an index (not live), that coverage may be 'complete' or 'partial,' and that 'partial' should be treated as a floor. It also notes the response includes lastCompletedPassAt and source. It does not detail rate limits or error behavior, but the most important non-obvious behavioral trait (partial coverage) is explicitly surfaced.

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 compact, information-dense, and well-ordered: what it searches, what it returns, how to interpret the index coverage, and the parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical caveat about 'partial' coverage is front-loaded in the middle. 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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the search target, return fields, coverage semantics, and cost/auth requirements ('Free, no signup'). It could mention source values (e.g., what 'source' refers to) or example queries, but for an agent to invoke it correctly with q, the description is nearly sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of 'q' by listing the accepted forms (issuer address, MPTokenIssuanceID or hex prefix, token name/ticker) but does not add formatting details, case sensitivity, or examples. The schema already documents the parameter adequately; the description adds modest enrichment.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('XRPL Multi-Purpose Token (XLS-33) registry index'), and the exact search dimensions (issuer address, MPTokenIssuanceID/hex prefix, token name/ticker). It also lists return fields, making it unmistakable what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like get_issuer_mpts (which fetches MPTs for a specific issuer) and verify_mpt_registry (which verifies registry membership).

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 clearly states when to use this tool: when searching the registry by issuer, ID, or ticker. It also signals the index-backed nature and coverage semantics ('partial' as a floor), which helps an agent decide if results are sufficient. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid, but the purpose clarity and context make the appropriate usage reasonably inferable.

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