Lulo Withdraw

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's statement 'Withdraw from Lulo lending position' is consistent and does not contradict. However, it does not add extra behavioral details beyond the annotations, but that is acceptable given 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?

Two sentences, each serving a specific purpose: stating the action and providing context about when to use alternative tools. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with a well-covered schema and output schema (present). The description, combined with annotations, fully informs the agent of the tool's purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits. No gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add any additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Withdraw) and resource (Lulo lending position), which is specific and differentiates it from siblings like lulo_deposit, lulo_getPositions, and lulo_getBestRates.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the sap_* tools, stating that the sap_* tools should be used when the capability should become part of an on-chain SAP agent profile or tool registry. This gives clear context and alternatives.

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