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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: history is opt-in via include_history=true, and unset profile fields return null rather than erroring.

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?

Three sentences: what it returns, when to use it, and edge-case behavior. Front-loaded with the resource definition, though the field enumeration is long and partially redundant with the usage examples.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of naming the returned fields and clarifying null-field behavior, which is the key return-value contract. Minor gaps remain (e.g., error behavior for a non-existent domain), but an agent has enough to call 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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions include_history and its purpose but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the full public profile of a single XRPL domain') followed by an explicit enumeration of what the profile contains. This clearly distinguishes it from bulk-oriented siblings like check_domains and resolve_address.

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?

Provides four concrete user-utterance triggers ('show me X.xrp', 'who owns X.xrp?', etc.) that map intent directly to this tool. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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