Get Customer Offramp Wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Returns the curated offramp wallet' — an undefined qualifier ('curated') that gives no real behavioral detail such as error cases when the wallet is not found or whether all three ids must form a consistent chain.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and short. The Args block is a near-verbatim duplication of the schema, which adds length without adding meaning, but the overall size remains small.

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 single-resource getter with full annotation coverage this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the phrase 'returns the curated offramp wallet' leaves the actual return shape unspecified, and there is no mention of failure behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the same one-line labels as the schema (customer id, bank account id, offramp wallet id) without explaining their relationship or scoping 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 and resource ('Get a single offramp wallet by id'), which distinguishes it from the list sibling as a single-resource fetch. It does not, however, name the closest alternative (ashar_list_customer_offramp_wallets) or clarify why customer_id and bank_account_id are required to fetch one wallet.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the list tool or the other customer wallet getters (custodial wallet, wallet balance). The only implied usage comes from 'by id', which the agent must infer.

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