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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the 7 scoring signals and real-time OFAC/UN/EU sanctions screening tell the agent what the result represents. It omits return format, latency, and any rate-limit/auth behavior.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core purpose and scoring basis front-loaded. No filler, though the signal list is dense and could be trimmed without loss.

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 single-address lookup with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains what the score is composed of and when to call it. Only the returned structure/format is left unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 schema already documents r_address, signed, and response_format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., it never explains the signed or response_format options), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (0-100 trust score) scoped to XRPL wallet addresses. The chain reference cleanly distinguishes it from the EVM and Stellar siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

"Use before paying or interacting with any XRPL wallet" gives clear actionable context for invocation. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (get_evm_wallet_score / get_stellar_wallet_score) or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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