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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond structured fields: the response is tiered by auth (unauthenticated gets a public receipt subset, the owning API key gets the full proof). It omits error behavior (unknown hash, malformed hash) and confirms nothing about idempotency or read-only nature explicitly, leaving gaps for a data-access tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the core action plus its key are front-loaded ahead of the auth-tiers detail. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the two shapes of return data (public receipt subset vs. full proof). For a single-parameter read tool that is nearly complete, with only error/failure behavior left unaddressed.

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 single txHash parameter is already fully documented (64 hex characters plus an example). The description's 'original' qualifier hints that the hash must be the originating transaction, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up an attestation') with the lookup key ('by its original XRP transaction hash'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_attestation_status, which also retrieves attestation data.

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?

Implicitly guides usage by naming the lookup key (transaction hash), suggesting the agent should use this when it has a txHash. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_attestation_status or verify_xrp_payment, and no guidance for what to do when only an attestation ID or status is known.

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