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

Annotations already cover the read-only/safe profile, and the description adds substantial value beyond them: explicit rate limits (20 calls/minute, at most one call per 3s), a full terminal-vs-nonterminal state machine, and the absence of cross-chain bridging relative to deposits.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded segments: deprecation flag, status semantics, then rate limits. Every sentence earns its place and the most important constraint is stated first.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating all status values with their meanings and terminality. An agent has everything needed to poll correctly and know when to stop.

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% for the single parameter, and the description's mention of trackingId only restates the schema's own note ('trackingId returned by submit_withdrawal'). Baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional syntax or format detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Poll the status of a withdrawal by trackingId') and names the producing tool (submit_withdrawal). It also distinguishes itself from the deposit sibling by noting withdrawals have no cross-chain bridging leg, unlike deposits.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: PROCESSING means keep polling, SUCCESS/FAILED are terminal, and it points to submit_withdrawal as the source of trackingId. However, the [DEPRECATED] marker names no replacement tool, leaving the agent without a migration path.

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