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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable content transparency by enumerating the returned fields, including fee schedule date and source document link, which is the key provenance signal an agent would want.

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 dense sentence, but the core purpose is front-loaded and every listed item is informative rather than filler. Mild length cost from the exhaustive enumeration.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fee categories, waivers, exchange-rate commentary, schedule date, and source link. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown bank, currency of returned fees), which is a modest gap for a read-only lookup.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value by quantifying the account_type enum's scope (17 personal institutions vs 9 business). It still doesn't discuss bank-name matching behavior beyond what the schema's examples already say.

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 ('One US bank's published wire fees') and enumerates exactly what is covered: domestic, international, cutoff times, waivers, exchange-rate notes, schedule date, source link. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_wire_cutoff_times or compare_bank_wire_fees, which overlap in subject matter, so the agent must infer the single-bank scope from 'One US bank'.

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 phrase 'One US bank's' implies this is the lookup for a known bank, contrasting implicitly with compare_bank_wire_fees, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given. It also doesn't clarify how this relates to get_wire_cutoff_times despite listing cutoff times as covered content.

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