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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool debits internal balance and executes an ERC-20 transfer on Polygon mainnet, sets a minimum amount, and returns a transaction hash and link. However, it does not mention potential fees, reversibility, or risks, which are important for a financial transaction tool.

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 concise, using two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides essential details (debit, blockchain transfer, minimum, output). No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a financial withdrawal and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers key aspects: action, blockchain execution, minimum amount, and return values. However, it lacks information about transaction fees, confirmation time, failure modes, and irreversibility, leaving gaps for an AI agent to safely use the tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like the minimum amount (1 CC = 10,000 cogs) and the default behavior for 'to_address', but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Withdraw' and the resource 'Capability Credits', specifying the destination as a Polygon wallet address. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'transfer_cc' (internal transfer) and 'borrow_cc' by focusing on external withdrawal to a blockchain address.

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 implies usage for withdrawing CC to an external Polygon wallet but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives like 'transfer_cc' or 'borrow_cc'. No guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use is provided.

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