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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses authorization semantics — a delegated agent sees only the withdrawals it requested, and others return not-found. That visibility/auth context is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource name and then the scoping rule. The opening 'My withdrawals' restates the title with little added value, which is the only minor waste.

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 paginated read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the one thing structured fields cannot: who sees what. With no output schema, return values are undeclared, but the not-found clause partly compensates.

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 description coverage is 100%, with limit (clamping) and cursor (invalid_cursor behavior) fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource (list withdrawals) and scopes it to the calling agent's wallet, which distinguishes it from the singular get_withdrawal and the write-side withdraw sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 scoping sentence implies this is the self-scoped listing view, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the singular get_withdrawal as an alternative, and no pagination advice beyond what the schema gives. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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