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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses quota costs, x402 payment challenge behavior (RLUSD first, then XRP), failure behavior (failed prepares do not consume quota), the meaning of a valid PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, and expected timing of 90–180 seconds. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core action, followed by relevant constraints and billing details. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no annotations, though the billing sentences could be tightened slightly.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: cost model, failure cases, payment challenge flow, timing, and the follow-up tool for status. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single txHash parameter is fully documented in the schema including format and example. The description adds semantic meaning by specifying that it must be a native XRP Payment hash and that only the last 14 days are provable, which is beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a native XRP Payment hash for FDC attestation on Flare.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_attestation_status by directing status checks there. An agent can identify the exact operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context: only Payments from the last 14 days can be proven, and status checks are free via get_attestation_status. It does not explicitly contrast with lookup_attestation_by_tx or get_attestation_by_round, but the main when-to-use guidance is present.

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