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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares irreversibility, names the exact side effect (entity marked withdrawn), and scopes the private_key_jwk to this call only. It stops short of stating permissions required for the key or what the response looks like.

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 with the destructive warning placed early and the parameter requirements following. No filler, though the parenthetical spec reference is of limited use to an agent.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested JWK object, the description covers danger and credential scoping well but omits what eid identifies and what a successful withdrawal returns. An agent could call it, but would be guessing on identity semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains confirm=true and that private_key_jwk is call-scoped, which is real added meaning. However, the eid parameter is never explained and the JWK object shape is left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb (withdraw) and resource (Declaration, spec 6.3), and makes the effect explicit ('the entity is marked withdrawn'). It does not contrast itself with siblings like openentity_adopt or openentity_verify, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Withdraw your Declaration' and the required confirm=true gate, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings such as openentity_adopt, nor any preconditions or exclusions beyond the confirm flag.

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