user_withdraw_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. The GET verb weakly implies a read-only listing, but there is no mention of required permissions, the admin-impersonation behavior implied by user_id, ordering, or pagination semantics.

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?

It is short, but not concisely informative: the content is a fragment (method + path) plus auto-generated tag/spec boilerplate that does not help an agent decide or invoke. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient writing.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only place behavioral and return-shape context could live, and it is empty. An agent knows it is a GET on /user/withdraw but not what it returns, how it is scoped, or how it differs from the many sibling withdrawal tools.

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%: limit, offset, and user_id all carry inline descriptions, including the important note that user_id means the admin acts on behalf of that user. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states the HTTP method and path (GET /user/withdraw) and adds the Russian gloss "Списания средств" (fund withdrawals), which does convey the resource being listed. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as admin_user_service_withdraw_get or user_pay_get, so an agent cannot route confidently from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternative tools. The trailing metadata ("Тег: Пользователи", "Спека: user") is organizational tagging, not usage direction.

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