request_withdrawal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires verified KYC' but fails to state that this initiates a real financial transaction, any side effects, irreversibility, or that it might be asynchronous. The description is sparse for a money-movement tool.

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 concise, two short sentences, and front-loaded with the action. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundant information.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what to expect in the response, that the request is likely asynchronous, or suggest using get_withdrawal_status to track progress. More context is needed for a withdrawal operation.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Request'), the resource ('a fiat withdrawal'), and the platform ('via Brale'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transfer_tokens and initiate_deposit by specifying 'fiat withdrawal'.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool (for fiat withdrawals) and includes a prerequisite (verified KYC). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using transfer_tokens for crypto withdrawals.

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