Resolve a did:xrpl to its DID Document

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the burden; it does disclose a key trust trait — the document is read from the ledger and doesn't depend on the server. It omits failure behavior (unresolvable DID, invalid network) and permission requirements, which matters for a no-annotation tool.

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: purpose first, trust property second, sibling routing last. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose and verifiability well. The remaining gap is operational: what 'network' selects and what happens when resolution fails.

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, yet neither parameter is explained. The 'network' parameter (with an empty-string default) is never mentioned, and the expected did:xrpl string format is only hinted at by the tool name.

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+resource (resolve a did:xrpl into its DID Document) and adds mechanism (reading the XRP Ledger). It also distinguishes itself from lookup_account, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative and its condition: 'For an account's balance and other on-ledger state, use lookup_account.' It also claims uniqueness ('only tool that returns a DID Document'), but does not address related siblings like derive_did or check_authorization, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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