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

Annotations provide the mutation/open-world profile, and the description adds useful access-level context: free, always available, and relayed through the same public gate as any HTTP client. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-load the core instruction and required data flow, with no filler. Every phrase contributes either to the call sequence or to behavioral expectations.

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?

With an output schema present, full parameter documentation, and annotations covering mutation/openness/idempotency, the description adds the remaining operational context (free, public, sequential dependency on prepare_backing_withdraw). Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents each parameter accurately. The description reinforces that bodyJson must be unchanged and that signature signs MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, but it adds little beyond the schema's existing clarity.

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 action ('Complete the withdrawal') and identifies it as step 2 of 2, referencing prepare_backing_withdraw directly. This distinguishes it from sibling submit_* tools by pinning the exact workflow stage and resource.

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 conveys when to use the tool: after prepare_backing_withdraw, since the bodyJson must come from that call unchanged. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools, but the sequencing is unmistakable and sufficient for correct selection.

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