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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Queries' implies a read-only operation, and it adds a useful caveat about account_fk being a database ID, but it does not explicitly state the lack of side effects or describe potential error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and readable, but the first two lines are nearly redundant ('Queries the state' repeated). The @param list is well-organized and each entry earns its place, so the redundancy is a minor flaw rather than a major issue.

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 query tool with four required parameters and no annotations, the description provides a clear purpose, all parameter semantics, and a note about the return type. The presence of an output schema offsets the lack of return field details. It could be slightly more informative about error states or preconditions, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's source and meaning. Notably, it clarifies that account_fk is a DB ID not an account address and may not be 0, and it specifies where to obtain token and payment_id. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Queries') and resource ('the state of an OTT Mobile withdrawal'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing the payment_id from withdraw/to_ott, making it the dedicated status-check step in the withdrawal flow.

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 explicitly positions the tool as 'Step 4. Optional' and tells the user to use the payment_id returned from withdraw/to_ott, providing clear context on when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the step-based guidance is sufficient for a straightforward query tool.

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