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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the ownership proof requirement and the specific status/action categories the tool surfaces, including WAIT_FOR_RECONCILIATION, RETRY_SAME_REQUEST, and RECOVERY_REQUIRED. No contradiction exists.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Read one withdrawal'), then efficiently packs the output scope, machine-readable actions, and precondition. Every clause 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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input context, the ownership precondition, and the likely return categories. Terms like 'canonical provider-transfer' are somewhat technical but do not block correct invocation, and the machine-readable action values are explicitly enumerated.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain what withdrawalId represents or how it should be formatted. However, the single parameter is self-descriptive from its name, has a simple string type with min/max constraints in the schema, and the description adds the context that a withdrawal is tied to a source wallet. This is minimally adequate but not richly compensating.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('one withdrawal') and details exactly what is returned: canonical provider-transfer, ledger status, and machine-readable action. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like request_withdrawal or get_payment by focusing on withdrawal status and recovery/retry actions.

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 description gives clear contextual usage guidance by stating the precondition 'after proving ownership of the source wallet,' which tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops 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.