get_withdrawal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, amount, transaction hash, and processing details, which implies a non-destructive read. However, it does not mention error behavior, required permissions, or whether the status values are standardized, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key return fields. It contains no filler or redundant content, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter status check, the description is largely complete: it names the key return fields (status, amount, transaction hash, processing details) and implies a read-only operation. However, because there is no output schema and no mention of error cases or missing data handling, it leaves a minor gap in what the agent should expect in unusual scenarios.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about the withdrawalId parameter beyond its name and type, which is already documented in the schema. No additional format or usage details are provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'check' with the resource 'withdrawal request', clearly indicating a read operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_withdrawal (opposite) and get_payment_status (different resource type) by focusing on withdrawals.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to check withdrawal status) but does not explicitly provide alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention get_payment_status as a distinct tool for payment statuses, leaving potential ambiguity for agents choosing between sibling tools.

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