withdraws_get_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that -- no statement about freshness of the limits, whether they are account-specific or global, or caching behavior, so it merely restates the operation the annotations already characterize.

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?

Two lines, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the REST path, which is useful for mapping to API documentation. The path line largely duplicates the tool name, so it carries only mild extra value, but there is no wasted prose.

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 zero-parameter read with complete annotations, the definition is minimally adequate: the agent knows it is a safe, idempotent lookup. However, with no output schema, the description is the only place to indicate what the returned 'limits' contain (per-currency, min/max, method-specific), and it supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to judge the result's meaning.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline case where no parameter explanation is required, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the 'no argument' nature of the call. Nothing in the description contradicts or is needed to supplement the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('withdraw limits'), so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as withdraws_get_methods or withdraws_get_list, and it does not say what a 'limit' consists of (min/max amounts, per-currency, per-method), leaving the scope of the resource underspecified.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or authentication context, and no pointer to alternatives among the many withdraws_* and limits-related siblings. The agent must infer that this is a prerequisite lookup before an init call purely from the names of other tools.

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