withdrawWETH

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states what happens (WETH converted to ETH) but doesn't mention permissions needed, gas costs, whether this is a transaction or simulation, confirmation requirements, or potential side effects. For a financial operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two well-documented parameters and gets straight to the point.

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 financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after withdrawal (where ETH goes), confirmation requirements, error conditions, or return values. The context demands more complete operational guidance than provided.

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 both parameters ('chainId' and 'amount') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation.

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') and resource ('WETH back to native ETH'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'depositWETH' or other withdrawal-related tools, though the conversion aspect (WETH→ETH) provides some implicit distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'depositWETH' and various 'intentWithdraw' tools present, there's no indication of when this specific WETH withdrawal tool is appropriate versus other withdrawal mechanisms.

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