get_withdrawal_claims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'recent' but does not clarify sorting, pagination, or side effects (e.g., read-only). The description lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or what constitutes 'recent'.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, making it immediately scannable.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately. It lacks info on authentication or pagination details, but these are partly covered by the schema's limit parameter.

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%; both parameters (limit and owner) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning 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 'Get recent claimed (completed) withdrawals. Shows who received ETH back after the withdrawal queue processed their request'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('withdrawal claims'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_withdrawal_requests' by explicitly noting 'claimed (completed)'.

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 usage for completed withdrawals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_withdrawal_requests' or 'get_withdrawals_finalized'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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