ramzinex_get_withdraw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'read-only' and maps to a GET endpoint, confirming no side effects. It also notes credential requirements. However, it does not mention error handling or behavior for invalid IDs, but for a simple read, the provided details are sufficient.

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 extremely concise with three sentences plus a bullet list. It front-loads the purpose, includes essential details, and avoids unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, parameters, authentication, and read-only nature. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is complete and leaves no major 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides clear descriptions for both parameters: 'withdraw_id: Numeric id of the withdrawal to fetch' and 'instance: Configured instance to use (default when omitted)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema types and requiredness.

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 one withdrawal by id (read-only)'. It specifies the action (get), resource (withdrawal), and read-only nature. The HTTP endpoint mapping further clarifies. This effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ramzinex_get_withdraws (multiple) and ramzinex_submit_withdraw (create).

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 mentions 'Requires configured credentials', indicating prerequisite. It implicitly suggests usage when a single withdrawal ID is known, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like ramzinex_get_withdraws. Clear context but lacks explicit exclusion or guidance.

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