List your withdrawals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are ordered newest-first and each record carries a state. Pagination semantics are left to the schema rather than the prose.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler: trigger condition first, then scope, ordering and payload. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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-required-parameter read with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the description covers when to call it, what it returns conceptually, and how results are ordered. No output schema exists, so a brief note on the shape of a withdrawal record (amount, date) would have closed the last gap.

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 coverage is 100% — limit, offset and state are all fully documented, including the 422 refusal on unknown states. The description's phrase 'with their state' only loosely gestures at the state filter and adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('lists withdrawals') plus scope ('they requested from their seller wallet'), ordering ('newest first'), and the key field ('state'). This clearly separates it from growwer_get_seller_wallet (balances) and growwer_download_withdrawal_invoice, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use this when the user asks about the withdrawals they requested' gives an explicit triggering condition, which is stronger than most sibling definitions. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_seller_wallet for balance, download_withdrawal_invoice for the PDF), so it lacks exclusions.

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