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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the verification process step-by-step (rebuild leaf, fold proof, confirm root in MemoData) and mentions the pending status before the daily anchor runs. This fully discloses the tool's behavior without relying on annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary technical details about verification steps and the pending state. While somewhat verbose, the detail is directly relevant and the structure flows logically from purpose to method to edge case.

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?

The description fully equips the agent to understand what to expect: it lists all output components (canonical leaf, Merkle proof, anchor tx hash, ledger close time, SHA-256 of source data) and explains the verification flow. It also covers the pre-anchor edge case. Without an output schema, this level of detail is 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?

The schema description for query_id already states it is the queryId from screen_address_ofac or get_lending_exposure. The tool description repeats this exact information, adding no new semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: given a queryId from screen_address_ofac or get_lending_exposure, it returns all data needed to verify a receipt without trusting XRPLHub. It specifies the exact output components (canonical leaf, Merkle proof, anchor transaction hash, etc.), making the function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: whenever a receipt from the two named source tools needs verification. It mentions the prerequisite queryId and the workflow of rebuilding the leaf, folding the proof, and checking the anchor transaction. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the references to the sibling tools provide clear context.

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