xrpl_telemetry_get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that this is a polling operation, includes 'no extra charge' (cost transparency), and lists the returned fields. It does not explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior or error conditions, but 'poll' and 'status' imply a read-only operation, making this reasonably transparent.

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 only two sentences, front-loads context ('Paid flow step 2 (no extra charge)') and then states the action and return values. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow step, the expected input, and the output fields. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, making it complete within its scope.

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%, with the parameter already described as 'Invoice id from get_quote.' The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Poll invoice status from get_quote' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself as 'Paid flow step 2' and 'Returns paid (bool), amount, ledger_index, and expiry.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and its relationship to sibling tools like get_quote.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by labeling this as 'Paid flow step 2' and referencing 'get_quote' as the source of the invoice_id. It implies when to use it (after getting a quote), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_results, 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.