Расчёт комиссии вывода (шаг 1)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is non-destructive ('Ничего не списывает') and explains the purpose of the returned IDs. It could add more detail about side effects or prerequisites, but the key behavioral trait (no debit) is disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function and the key safety guarantee. No wasted words.

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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description explains what it returns (orderId, quoteId) and why they matter. It doesn't describe the full return structure, but the essential context for calling it correctly is present.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context that the tool is a safe pre-check, but doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it calculates withdrawal commission and returns orderId and quoteId, which are prerequisites for creating a withdrawal request. It also explicitly notes that it doesn't debit anything, distinguishing it from the actual withdrawal initiation tool (wata_wallet_withdraw_initiate).

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 implies this is a safe pre-flight step before creating a withdrawal request, and the sibling tool wata_wallet_withdraw_initiate is the actual withdrawal tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or state when NOT to use this tool, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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