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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the state change (wallet stops being tradeable) and a key boundary (login addresses are not removable), but says nothing about permissions/auth, what happens if the proof doesn't exist, or whether the removal is reversible by re-proving.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the caveat last; nothing is redundant. The 'leaked key' framing is narrow but still earns its place as a usage cue.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description covers intent and one exclusion but leaves the parameter meaning and failure/reversibility behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage and only a regex pattern. The description never explains what 'address' should be — the wallet address, the proof identifier, or something else — so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 (withdraw) and resource (a proof) plus the concrete effect: the wallet no longer counts as one this account can trade from. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the inverse sibling prove_wallet, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Reach for it after rotating a leaked key' gives a clear when-to-use trigger, and 'Login addresses are not proofs and are not removable' supplies a when-not-to-use exclusion. It stops short of naming prove_wallet as the alternative for the reverse operation, so routing is only partly explicit.

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