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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost (0.01 USDC) and the auto-detection mechanism, which are significant behavioral traits. It does not cover reversibility or failure modes, but for a simple withdrawal, this is adequate.

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, with two sentences conveying purpose, cost, and destination. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, cost, and destination auto-detection. It does not explain the result or confirmation, but that is not essential for this simple withdrawal operation.

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 only parameter, amount, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including an example and a balance requirement. The description does not add further parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action (withdraw USDC), the source (custodial wallet), the destination (owner wallet), and adds cost and auto-detection details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_tokens or fund_wallet, which are more general.

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 the use case: withdrawing USDC from the custodial wallet to the owner wallet, with the owner auto-detected via x402 payment. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools.

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