get_withdrawal_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, and the schema parameter notes 'Defaults to your own user ID', which adds some behavioral context. However, the description does not disclose output format, possible side effects, or any rate limits or permissions, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is easy to parse and front-loads the key action and object.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., fields like status, amount, timestamps) or provide any context about how to interpret the response, which is a gap given there is no output schema. However, the low complexity and clear purpose keep it at a minimum viable level.

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%, with userId described as 'External user ID. Defaults to your own user ID.' The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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: 'Get withdrawal requests for a user via Brale' – a specific verb ('get'), resource ('withdrawal requests'), and scope ('for a user'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_deposit_status and request_withdrawal by naming 'withdrawal' as the focus.

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 gives a clear indication of when to use this tool (to retrieve withdrawal requests for a user), but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. The implied usage is sufficient for a simple read tool.

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