get_withdrawals_finalized

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool shows 'when the protocol finalized withdrawal request ranges, locking ETH and burning shares', which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only query or mention any side effects, rate limits, or idempotence. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise at two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds clarifying detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what data is shown and the context (finalization, locking ETH, burning shares). It could mention the return format (e.g., list of events) or pagination behavior, but given the simplicity, it is still effective.

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% (the only parameter 'limit' is described in the schema). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the guidelines, when schema_description_coverage is high, baseline is 3, so this score 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 tool retrieves 'withdrawal finalization batches' and explains that it shows when the protocol finalized withdrawal request ranges, locking ETH and burning shares. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_withdrawal_claims and get_withdrawal_requests.

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 its usage: to get withdrawal finalization batches. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'use this for finalized batches, use get_withdrawal_requests for pending requests'). No 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned.

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