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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose some useful behavior: results aggregate all sources, the optional date returns values in force at that date, and responses identify the regional entity for mutualist groups. It says nothing about ordering, response shape, or what happens with missing fee data, so the mutation/read and error profile remains unstated.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one genuinely non-obvious caveat about mutualist groups. No filler, though the second sentence is cryptic without domain knowledge of 'caisses régionales'.

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?

A four-parameter, no-output-schema tool that needs the description to explain returns. It conveys the gist (history + in-force value + entity attribution) but leaves the response structure, ordering, and behavior for unknown attributes unexplained; the schema does cover the unknown-key fallback, which offsets some of the gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description corroborates the optional date semantics ('valeur en vigueur à une date optionnelle') but adds no meaning beyond the schema for bank, plan, or attribute.

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 names a specific resource (the history of a single fee for a given bank) plus scope qualifiers ('toutes sources confondues', optional in-force date). It clearly implies a historical view as opposed to a current-fee lookup, though it never names the sibling tool it contrasts with (e.g. get_bank_fees or get_tariff_changes).

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Historique' suggests choosing this over a current-fee tool when past values matter, and the mutualist-group note hints at when entity resolution matters. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement and no named alternative among the ten siblings.

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