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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds material context beyond that — no gas cost, signing by the user's own wallet or passkey, and that the house never holds a key, plus the relay path to the same public gate as any HTTP client. It does not address replay/retry behavior despite idempotentHint=false, which is the one notable gap.

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 critical instruction (pass these three values, body unchanged, signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN) is front-loaded in the first clause. Minor redundancy between 'Free, always' and 'Cost and signer: free, no gas' costs it a point, but nothing is padding.

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 available and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the flow position, cost, and signer model an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The missing piece is what happens on a repeated or failed submission, which matters given a non-idempotent write step.

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 baselines at 3; the description reinforces the 'UNCHANGED' constraint on bodyJson but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema fields already state for workId, bodyJson, and signature.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Complete the withdrawal') and positions the tool as step 2 of 2, explicitly tied to prepare_vote_withdraw. This makes it distinguishable from the adjacent prepare_vote_withdraw and from the many sibling submit_* tools by naming the exact predecessor artifact.

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?

It clearly states the prerequisite flow: use this after prepare_vote_withdraw, passing that tool's BODY_JSON and the signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. It does not spell out failure/recovery cases (e.g., what to do if the signature expires or the body was modified), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the ordering context is unambiguous.

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