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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains refund behavior, that the server tries to stop the letter, when the withdrawal right ends, the two-step confirm process, and that the user receives an e-mail. This adds substantial operational context for a destructive, externally visible action.

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 front-loaded with purpose and the key alternative, then proceeds through consequences and the confirmation workflow. Every sentence carries useful operational 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 destructive withdrawal tool with refund and timing implications, the description covers the important prerequisites, consequences, and confirmation flow. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for confirm by explaining that the first call should omit it and the second should set it to true after user confirmation.

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: withdrawing from a paid letter order of this service. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from prepare_letter, which is used to write a withdrawal letter to another company.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance, a clear when-not-to-use case, and names the alternative tool prepare_letter. It also specifies the required two-step confirmation workflow.

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