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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by explaining the two-state model and that chain-submitted withdrawals are no longer recallable. It does not explicitly state that this is a side-effect-free read operation or explain behavior on empty results, but nothing contradicts the implied read-only nature.

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?

A single, tight sentence with no filler. The scope ('your queued withdrawals') is front-loaded, and the key distinction between recallable and chain-submitted withdrawals follows immediately. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description conveys the essential result: queued withdrawals with their recallability state. It stops short of stating the exact return shape, such as whether the response is a list, and leaves owner-format details implicit, but the operation is simple enough that this is nearly complete.

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. It partially does: 'your' signals that the owner parameter scopes the result to a specific account. However, it does not explain the required format of the owner string or how it relates to the authenticated caller, leaving the parameter semantics only lightly specified.

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 identifies a read-oriented purpose: it exposes queued withdrawals and their current state, distinguishing recallable withdrawals from those already sent to the chain. It adds meaning beyond the tool name and separates this from mutation-focused siblings like withdraw or cancel_withdrawal, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns'.

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 intended use is implied: call this to inspect queued withdrawals and determine whether any can still be recalled, which pairs naturally with cancel_withdrawal. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of related tools, nor does it state exclusions or conditions.

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