Account Identity Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It proactively discloses the 400-object scan cap and the *Truncated flag, which is critical behavioral information about result limits. No contradictions with annotations.

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 that efficiently lists all relevant components, though it is somewhat dense. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes necessary detail without excess.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the components of the summary (flags, keys, signer list, DID, credential counts with truncation). It does not detail the return format, but the listed components provide sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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?

There is only one parameter (address) with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and clearly identifies the resource ('XRPL account identity posture') and the specific components included. It distinguishes from siblings like credential_list or did_resolve by covering multiple identity aspects.

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 implies the tool is for getting an overview of account identity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like credential_list or did_resolve, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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