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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the scope is the authenticated user's own account and a Tchin login may be requested on first call, which the annotations do not say.

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 compact sentences that lead with the audience/scope and then the returned content. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence could be trimmed into a shorter field list.

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?

A read-only list tool with no output schema, so it is valuable that the description enumerates the returned fields. The remaining gap is the 'limite' parameter and whether results are capped by default, which the description never addresses.

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 only 50%: 'mode' is documented in the schema, but 'limite' (1-50) has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit or to clarify real-vs-test semantics.

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+resource: the last withdrawals of the account, and enumerates the returned fields (date, montant, frais, moyen, statut). It is clearly a personal-history list, distinct from detail_transaction or retirer_mobile_money, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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?

Implies usage: for the connected user's own account, merchant or individual, with login requested on first use. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as mes_transactions or detail_transaction for a single withdrawal.

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