cash_out

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the accrual process, the $5 minimum threshold, and that withdrawal is all-at-once. This gives the agent a good sense of the tool's behavior beyond the basic 'cash out' action.

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, front-loading the main action and providing essential context without any redundancy. 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the action, the threshold, and the nature of withdrawal. It doesn't detail post-withdrawal consequences, but that's beyond the core function.

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?

The only parameter (user_id) is fully described in the schema with 'Freeplay user UUID'. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's function with a specific verb ('Cash out') and resource ('pending earnings'). It is distinct from sibling tools like accept_offer or check_progress, though it doesn't explicitly name differences.

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 a clear condition for use: 'Once your pending balance reaches $5.00, you can withdraw everything at once.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions.

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