withdraw_from_lending

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'withdraw supplied assets'—repeating the tool name. It does not mention that this is a state-changing transaction, that it will be broadcast to the network, gas implications, or that the private key is only used for signing/derivation. These are critical gaps for a DeFi mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the essential action and is easy to parse.

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 side-effectful multi-parameter DeFi tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. It omits return values, transaction execution details, default network awareness, security notes, and failure modes. The schema fills parameter names but not operational context.

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 the parameters are already well-documented in the schema (asset, amount, network, protocol, privateKey). The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the tool's core intent, which is acceptable under the baseline but not an improvement.

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 specific verb ('withdraw') and resource ('supplied assets from a lending protocol'), which clearly distinguishes this from borrowing or repaying. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives or edge cases (e.g., 'this is not for withdrawing borrowed funds'), leaving slight ambiguity with tools like borrow_from_lending.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions (e.g., 'requires an existing supply position'). The description only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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