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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one meaningful constraint — only *public* pages are fetchable, implying no authentication and that private or unpublished content will fail — but it says nothing about response size, truncation, caching, or error behavior for invalid paths.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the page-type enumeration tacked on compactly. It is efficient and wastes no words, though the parenthetical list partially duplicates the schema's path documentation.

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 one-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the input shape and states the return form (Markdown rendering). The only real gap is the absence of any hint about the response structure (front matter, headings) or failure modes, which is minor at this complexity.

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% and the single `path` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the exact route patterns for each page type. The description's parenthetical page list largely restates that schema content, so it adds little meaning beyond it; 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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and a specific resource (the Markdown rendering of a Banklabs page), and enumerates the page categories covered (homepage, hub, fiche, comparatif, guide). This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which all return structured data (fees, banks, promotions) rather than rendered page content, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving raw page content, as opposed to the structured-data siblings. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_bank_fees or get_coverage, and no note on what to do if the page does not exist or if a structured tool would answer the question better.

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