xrpl_trust_list_operators_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that the endpoint is free, returns a paginated index, and includes a specific field set—useful context that suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, lacks rate-limit or quota info, and does not clarify behavior of the status filter beyond what the schema already lists.

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 a single sentence plus a fragment, with unnecessary words stripped. It front-loads the important 'Free' and immediately communicates scope and return fields. Every part contributes value, and there is no repetition of schema details.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it discloses pagination, free access, and the fields returned. However, it omits when-to-use guidance, explanation of the status parameter's effect, and any note about ordering or defaults. Given the lack of structured annotations, the description could do more to fully inform an agent.

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 only 33% (only status has an explicit description). The description itself does not explain limit, offset, or status, merely mentioning 'Paginated' which weakly implies limit/offset. Since coverage is low, the description needed to compensate but did not add meaning beyond the schema's constraints and the status enum string.

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 clearly states this is an index of all PermissionedDomain operators, enumerates the returned fields (address, label, jurisdiction, status, domain count, issuer count), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrpl_trust_list_domains (which lists domains) and xrpl_trust_operator_drilldown (which drills down into one operator). However, it uses 'Index of' rather than an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get', making the action slightly nominalized.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hints are 'Free' and 'Paginated', which imply general browsing but do not indicate situations where a sibling tool like xrpl_trust_operator_drilldown or xrpl_trust_list_domains would be more appropriate.

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