Read a credential's state on the ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states that the tool submits no transaction, spends nothing, and needs no write permission. It also explains the critical semantic that existence does not imply acceptance, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only useful routing and behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope, safety, or alternative tools.

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?

The output schema already covers return values, and the description adequately explains the read-only behavior and acceptance semantics. However, for a tool with four parameters at 0% schema coverage, the missing parameter documentation leaves a meaningful completeness gap.

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 define the four parameters, but it does not explain issuer, subject, credential_type, or network formats. It hints at subject/issuer semantics through the acceptance explanation, but credential_type and network remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: reading one credential's state from the XRP Ledger. It names the exact state returned (existence, acceptance, URI, expiration) and distinguishes the tool from issue_credential, accept_credential, and lookup_account.

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 explicitly says this is a pure read requiring no transaction and no --allow-writes, and routes the agent elsewhere for account balance and accepting a credential. The distinction between issuance and acceptance further clarifies when this read is appropriate.

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