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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that entries are real, dated, include the platform's source URL, and carry a last-verified date.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads what the log contains and then summarizes the filtering options.

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 read-only retrieval tool with three optional filters, rich annotations, and a fully described schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the data's provenance and verification, though it does not discuss output shape or ordering, which is acceptable given there is no output schema.

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 three filters are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of filtering by platform, effective date, or upcoming changes only repeats the schema rather than adding format or semantic detail beyond it.

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 identifies the resource as a machine-readable log of dated US marketplace fee changes, including the specific change types covered. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools calculate_fees and compare_platforms, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 lists available filter dimensions but does not say when to use this tool instead of calculate_fees or compare_platforms. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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