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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost ($0.10 USD), the fact that it lists all domains (scope), the included fields (owner, accepted credentials, institutional issuer counts), and pagination behavior. This is substantial value beyond what structured fields provide, though it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or read-only status explicitly. The cost and pagination disclosures are particularly useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the critical cost information and immediately states the action and scope. It includes all necessary details (network, object type, returned fields, pagination) without any wasted words. It is concise, scannable, and every phrase adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a list operation with three parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the returned fields and pagination, and the cost is stated. It does not describe the response envelope (e.g., how pagination metadata is represented) or potential errors, but these are less critical for a list tool. The description provides adequate context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though slightly more detail on offset/limit semantics would make it fully complete.

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 low at 33% (only payment_signature has a description). The tool description adds some semantic value by mentioning 'Paginated' (suggesting limit/offset purpose) and 'Paid' (implying payment_signature's role), but it does not explain how the parameters interact (e.g., default limit, offset for pages, or that payment_signature is required for payment). The description adds a bit of meaning but does not fully compensate for the undocumented limit and offset parameters, so a 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 function: 'List all XRPL PermissionedDomain (XLS-80) objects on mainnet with owner, accepted credentials, and institutional issuer counts.' It uses a specific verb ('list all') and resource ('XRPL PermissionedDomain'), and the phrase 'all' distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrpl_trust_get_domain, which likely retrieves a single domain. The mention of 'on mainnet' and XLS-80 further clarifies scope.

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 implies usage context: it is a paid, paginated listing of all domains, so it should be used when a complete enumeration is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use xrpl_trust_get_domain for a specific domain.' The cost and pagination provide some contextual guidance, but the lack of explicit exclusions or alternative tool references keeps this at an implied level.

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