List withdrawals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: result ordering (newest first) and that the result set is org-scoped and pageable with has_more/next_page. It stops short of auth requirements or rate-limit/consistency caveats.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then a tidy Args block and a Returns line — well sized and easy to scan. The Returns line is largely redundant given a full output schema exists, which is the only wasted content.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain the payload, yet it still restates the envelope; the more valuable coverage (ordering, filters, pagination limits) is there. What's missing — auth scope, what qualifies as a withdrawal record, and why response_format matters — is minor given the structured fields.

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 25% (just response_format), so the description must carry the other three parameters — and it does enumerate status values, page default, and the 1–100 limit range. Much of that restates the schema's own enums/defaults, and response_format is never mentioned in the Args block, so it is not fully compensating.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the organization's withdrawals') plus the ordering ('newest first'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, contrast itself against the close sibling jami_get_withdrawal, leaving the singular-vs-list distinction to be inferred from names alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the optional status filter and pagination defaults — an agent can infer this is for browsing/filtering the org's withdrawal queue. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of jami_get_withdrawal or jami_quote_withdrawal, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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