bitpin_create_irt_withdrawal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that authentication is required and that a follow-up OTP step exists, but says nothing about irreversibility, when funds are debited, fees/limits, or what the call returns – meaningful gaps for a financial mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the two operational requirements. No filler and nothing important buried.

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 2-parameter financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow but omits return behavior and how the OTP step connects to bitpin_verify_withdrawal_otp. An agent knows what the tool does but not fully what to expect after calling it.

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 both amount and account_number are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. formatting, limits, where to obtain the account ID) beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit an Iranian Toman (IRT) withdrawal') and narrows the destination to 'a registered bank account on BitPin.' This distinguishes it implicitly from crypto and internal withdrawal siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives prerequisites ('Requires authentication', 'Requires subsequent OTP confirmation') that imply the flow, but never states when to choose this over bitpin_create_crypto_withdrawal or bitpin_create_internal_withdrawal. Usage is inferable only from the IRT/bank-account framing.

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