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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the domain constraint (withdrawal-method changes must happen in HGRWeb), which prevents a doomed write attempt and gives the agent a redirect. It still says nothing about result volume or pagination, so not a 5.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the constraint. Every sentence 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?

With no parameters, rich annotations and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs purpose plus any operational caveat — both are present. A note on whether the full history is returned unfiltered (since no filter parameters exist) would close the last gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that do not exist.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Reads affiliate withdrawal history.' An agent can immediately tell this is a read of withdrawal records and not a dashboard or token-history call. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (e.g., hgr_get_affiliate_dashboard or hgr_get_user_gettokenhistory), so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives an implied boundary — mutations such as changing the withdrawal method are out of scope and belong in HGRWeb — which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool. However, it never states when to pick this over the many other affiliate/user read siblings, leaving that inference to the agent.

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