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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the minimum withdrawal, that processing is on-chain, and that it may take minutes. This goes beyond the schema to explain the operational behavior, though it omits details like fees or reversibility.

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 two sentences, immediately states the action, then provides essential constraints. There is no redundant or vague wording; every word 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 tool with no output schema, this description covers the essential context: what it does, the minimum amount, and the expected processing behavior. It could add a note about balance sufficiency or transaction hash feedback, but the current level is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 only parameter 'amount' is already fully described in the schema (with minimum 100 TRX). The description repeats this minimum, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Withdraw') and clearly identifies the resource ('TRX from your account balance to your wallet'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy_energy or execute_swap, which have different purposes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to move TRX out of your account to your wallet. It also provides a key constraint (minimum 100 TRX) and a time expectation. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of being fully explicit.

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