Look Up NFT Issuer

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe to call. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining verification methods (domain records and on-chain AccountSet) and the meaning of each status value. It also clarifies the open-world nature by warning that missing results should not be treated as approval. This goes beyond what annotations already provide, meriting a 4.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It uses bullet points for statuses, which improves scannability, and every sentence adds value—from usage guidance to result interpretation to status definitions. No redundant fluff; it is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 lookup tool with a single parameter and a rich output schema (not shown but referenced as including fields like verified_at, verified_by, toml_url, accountset_tx_hash), the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, usage, result interpretation, status meanings, and safety caveats. An agent has everything it needs to decide when to use it and how to interpret the results, making it complete for its complexity.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'query' as a company name or XRPL wallet address with an example. The description reinforces this by clarifying it can be either a company name or wallet address and mentions the registry maps real-world names to wallets. It adds a bit more context about the parameter's role in the broader verification process, but the schema coverage is already high (100%), so the description's added value is modest but real.

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 purpose: to look up an organisation in the AgentTrust XRPL NFT Issuer Registry, mapping company names to verified wallet addresses. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_nft_issuer_by_wallet by specifying it can query by name or wallet address, whereas the sibling is wallet-specific. This precision helps an agent select the correct tool.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to verify if an NFT was issued by a legitimate organisation before accepting it as proof of ownership or as a delivery condition in an escrow. It also provides critical guidance on how to interpret results, including not treating missing results as implicit approval and being cautious with statuses like 'public' and 'disputed'. This is stronger than typical usage guidance.

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