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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: owner-only authorization, revert behavior under debt/undercollateralization, the max_uint256 limitation, and on-chain account version auto-detection. These add significant context that the annotations do not provide, and there is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true since it only builds an unsigned transaction.

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 four sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful constraints or clarification: ownership, revert condition, amount limitation, and version override. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description covers the critical operational details an agent needs: owner-only access, revert risk, exact amount requirement, and account version behavior. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly without additional ambiguity.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is strong. The description adds valuable parameter-level guidance: asset_amounts must be exact amounts from read_account_info and cannot be max_uint256, and account_version can override auto-detection. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to withdraw assets from an Arcadia account to the owner's wallet.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write operations like deposit, borrow, or swap, and the phrase 'unsigned transaction' clarifies that it does not broadcast.

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 provides clear usage context: only the account owner can withdraw, withdrawal reverts if it would leave the account undercollateralized, and exact amounts must be passed rather than max_uint256. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use it, but the conditions and constraints are strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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