koios_reserve_withdrawals

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns, not how it behaves (e.g., pagination, ordering, data range, or response format). The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is weak and not confirmed.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it is also under-specified and repeats the resource name already in the tool name. It earns only partial credit for being brief without providing additional useful 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only restates the tool's purpose, the tool is not adequately contextualized. The schema covers parameters, but there is no explanation of the data scope, return structure, or operational context, making the description insufficient for a meaningful tool.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, which is sufficient given the 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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and specifies the resource ('reserve withdrawals') and context ('Cardano reserve'). It is unambiguous, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like treasury_withdrawals, which serve a similar conceptual purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer a different endpoint such as treasury_withdrawals. A single declarative sentence is all that is offered.

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