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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the key side effect (money returns to balance), the debit-on-request behavior, and the intended corrective use case. It does not discuss error cases or limits, but the core consequences are clearly disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. The key constraint (not sent yet) and the primary effect (money returns) are front-loaded, and every sentence adds meaningful 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 money-affecting mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It explains the purpose but not how to obtain the required identifiers, what the actual request parameters mean, what error cases exist (e.g., withdrawal already sent), or what the response looks like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It never mentions 'owner' or 'withdrawalId', leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. The names are fairly self-explanatory, but no validation, format, or source guidance is added.

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 states a specific verb and resource: recalling/cancelling a withdrawal that has not been sent, and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'withdraw' by explaining the pre-send timing and the effect of returning money to balance.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool ('has not been sent yet') and why it exists ('wrong or unsendable destination is undone'). It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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