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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds significant behavioral context by detailing the scope of the return value—components, tiers, ESG table, examples, and benchmarks—which goes beyond what the annotations convey. This helps an agent understand the richness and purpose of the output.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all key elements of the schedule. While it packs a lot of information, it remains readable and free of fluff. The structure could be improved by using bullet points or breaking into shorter sentences, but it is still concise and informative.

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?

Given that the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (reducing the need to explain return values), the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns: components, tiers, ESG table, scenario examples, and competitive benchmarks. This is complete for a read-only schedule retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (all params covered). The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. The description does not need to discuss parameters, but it adds value by describing the content of the output, which indirectly clarifies what the tool returns without input.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names a specific resource 'complete DPX fee schedule'. It enumerates the components (core/FX/ESG/license), volume discount tiers, ESG fee table, scenario examples, and competitive benchmarks. This level of detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like fees.compare (which would compare schedules) and fees.verify (which would verify specific fees).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose—retrieving the full fee schedule—but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools (e.g., fees.compare, fees.verify) or conditions under which the tool should or should not be used. Contextual cues from the tool's name and content imply uses, but no direct or comparative guidance is given.

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