Look Up NFT Issuer

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: it enumerates all five status values with their trust implications, explains that matching is exact or close only, describes the registered=false + register_url failure mode, and lists the proof fields (verified_at, verified_by, toml_url, accountset_tx_hash) that allow independent confirmation. This is exactly the trust-relevant behavior 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a use case, then caveats, then the status enum, then returns — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is on the long side, but the status-value list and the missing-result warning each carry distinct decision-relevant information.

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 read-only, open-world lookup, the description covers purpose, trust interpretation of every status, the negative-result case, and the evidence fields. An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, yet the description's summary of returns remains useful without being redundant.

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 coverage is 100% for the single query parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by clarifying matching semantics (exact-match or close-match only) and by confirming the dual company-name / wallet-address input mode that governs which sibling 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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (organisation in the AgentTrust XRPL NFT Issuer Registry) and describes what the registry maps (company names to verified XRPL wallet addresses). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_nft_issuer_by_wallet, which appears to be a near-duplicate lookup, so the agent must infer the split from the query parameter.

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?

Gives a concrete use case (checking whether an NFT was issued by a legitimate organisation before accepting it as proof of ownership or as an escrow delivery condition) and an explicit anti-pattern (do not treat a missing result as implicit approval). It never names an alternative sibling such as get_nft_issuer_by_wallet or verify_nft_ownership, so routing between near-duplicate lookups is left to inference.

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