withdraw_balance

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations, specifying the source (accumulated voting rewards) and destination (available balance). It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the annotations provide the basic safety profile, so this is acceptable.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential 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 simple action, one optional parameter, and adequate annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It states what the tool does and where the funds go, and the schema defines the network parameter. No output schema is present, so not explaining return values is acceptable.

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?

The schema provides full coverage of the only parameter (network) with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (withdraw), the resource (accumulated voting rewards), and the destination (configured wallet's available balance). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like withdraw_expire_unfreeze, which deals with unfreeze withdrawal, not voting rewards.

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 implies when to use: when there are accumulated voting rewards to withdraw. It mentions the configured wallet, giving some context, but does not explicitly note when not to use or mention alternatives. It is clear enough for a simple action.

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