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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares safe read behavior, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the cost ('Prix : 0.050 USDC') which indicates a payment requirement, but it does not explain the payment flow or what happens when payment_tx_hash is absent. This is partial behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 dense sentence with many statistics and prices. It is not excessively long, but the structure is a run-on list that mixes different types of information (tonnage, prices, regulation, export, cost) without clear organization. It could be more concise by focusing on the tool's function and usage.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. It gives sample data points (e.g., langouste prices) but not a clear description of the response structure. It also does not explain the payment behavior (e.g., that providing a hash unlocks data, or that omitting it returns payment instructions), which is essential for using this paid tool 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?

The schema description for payment_tx_hash is complete (100% coverage), describing it as a transaction hash and noting 'Absent = instructions paiement'. The tool description mentions the price but adds no further semantic meaning to the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 indicates the tool is about Caribbean artisanal fishing, including specific statistics and prices, and the name reinforces this with 'get'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its specific subject matter, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get' in the description text itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention preferred use cases, prerequisites, or any exclusionary conditions. The only context is the domain itself, which is implicit from the name and content.

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