Get withdrawal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by naming the state progression the caller should expect (pending → processing → completed/rejected), but says nothing about auth, polling cadence, or eventual-consistency behavior.

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?

Purpose sentence first, then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place with no restated or decorative text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, lifecycle, and parameter sourcing. It stops short of the operational details (auth scope, behavior while the withdrawal is still pending) that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 only 50%, so the description must carry some weight for withdrawal_id, and it does by documenting provenance (which sibling tool produces the id). The response_format enum is already fully documented inside the schema, so nothing is lost there.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Fetch one withdrawal by id') and adds the lifecycle it exists to observe (pending → processing → completed/rejected). The scope word 'one' plus the required id clearly separates it from jami_list_withdrawals and it is distinct from jami_quote_withdrawal.

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?

It states the practical context (tracking a withdrawal's status) and tells the agent where the id comes from ('jami_create_withdrawal or jami_list_withdrawals'). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over jami_list_withdrawals or a wait/poll alternative, so no explicit exclusions.

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