Derive a did:xrpl from an XRP address

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real weight here and it does disclose the key behavioral fact: the operation is side-effect-free, involving no transaction and no fee. It does not say whether the computation is local/deterministic, what happens with an unknown or empty network, or whether the same address on different networks yields different DIDs beyond the format hint.

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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose first, then the format, then the non-mutating guarantee. Nothing is padded and every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value description is rightly omitted, and the mutation profile is stated. The gap is the network parameter: an agent cannot tell from the description what to pass there or what the default empty string produces, which matters for a derivation whose output embeds that value.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and the format string did:xrpl:<network-id>:<address> does clarify what both parameters mean and how they are composed. However, the optional `network` parameter's empty-string default and acceptable values are left entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ("derive") and resource ("W3C-compatible decentralized identifier for an account on the XRP Ledger") and even shows the exact output shape, so the operation is unmistakable. It stops short of naming the inverse sibling resolve_did, so differentiation from the surrounding DID tools is only implicit via the "pure derivation" note.

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?

"This is a pure derivation -- no transaction, no registration, no fee" usefully rules out the write-path siblings like publish_did_set, but no tool is named as the alternative and no positive trigger ("use when you need to compute a DID from a known address") is stated. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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