Look Up NFT Issuer

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral details: it lists the return fields (name, wallet, verified status, domain) and explicitly notes that a register_url is returned if not found, giving insight into the not-found behavior. This exceeds the minimal baseline.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear main statement, a brief contextual explanation, a practical use case, and a summary of return fields. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 output schema is not provided in the context, the description compensates by explicitly listing the expected return fields and the not-found case. It covers the key operational details an agent would need to decide whether to call the tool and interpret its result, though it could be slightly more detailed about error scenarios or edge cases.

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% with a clear parameter description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example ('Ripple') and clarifying that the query can be either a company name or a wallet address, which helps disambiguate the accepted input beyond the schema text.

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 the tool's function: looking up an organization in the AgentTrust XRPL NFT Issuer Registry, mapping company names to verified wallet addresses. It also specifies the registry's verification method (domain records) and the practical use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit when-to-use scenario: checking whether an NFT is issued by a legitimate organization before accepting it as proof of ownership or in an escrow. However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., get_nft_issuer_by_wallet) or when not to use this tool, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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