xrpl_trust_operator_attribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It discloses the return components (parent funder, credential types, gated assets, plain-English summary, confidence tier), which gives the agent a clear idea of what the tool does. It does not mention error handling, side effects, or rate limits, but for a seemingly read-only attribution tool, this is 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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with 'Free' and the core purpose, followed by a colon-separated list of deliverables. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the key aspects by listing the output components. It lacks details on error cases or result format, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The sole parameter operator_address is fully documented in the schema with pattern and description (100% coverage). The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond stating it targets one operator, so the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 it provides institutional attribution for a single PermissionedDomain operator, listing specific output components (parent funder, credential types, gated assets, summary, confidence tier). It uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, and does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like xrpl_trust_operator_drilldown, but the details make the purpose clear.

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 phrase 'for one PermissionedDomain operator' implies this is for per-operator attribution queries, and 'Free' hints at cost considerations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like xrpl_trust_operator_drilldown or xrpl_trust_list_operators_index, nor any exclusions.

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