Лимиты вывода

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the error behavior ('Ваш запрос недействителен') when required parameters are missing, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response structure looks like, or any side effects. For a simple limits query this is partial coverage, not comprehensive.

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 very short and front-loaded: the first sentence essentially restates the title ('Лимиты вывода'), and the second sentence delivers the valuable parameter requirements and error note. There is minimal waste, but the first sentence adds little beyond the title. It is concise and to the point, deserving a solid score.

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 straightforward limits query with 4 parameters and conditional requirements, the description covers the key missing semantic (which parameters are required per type) and the error consequence. It does not describe the response shape, but since no output schema is provided and the tool is read-only in nature, this is acceptable. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds critical conditional requirements: for fiat, method is mandatory, and for crypto, blockchainType is mandatory—these are not encoded in the schema's required array (which only lists kind and currency). This clarifies that certain parameters become necessary based on the 'kind' value, going beyond the static schema descriptions. It also explains the consequence of omitting them.

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 states the resource (withdrawal limits) and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wata_wallet_withdrawal_methods or wata_wallet_withdrawal_commission. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query', relying on the noun phrase 'Лимиты вывода' to imply the operation. This is clear enough but not maximally explicit.

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 gives parameter-level usage instructions (which parameters are required for fiat vs crypto) and warns about the error response. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wata_wallet_withdrawal_methods or wata_wallet_withdraw_initiate. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusionary cases, so an agent gets no help with tool selection.

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