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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by enumerating the change categories and confirming this is a detection/read operation rather than a mutation, but it omits the comparison baseline (which two editions), default time window, and any pagination or volume expectations.

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 dense sentence with the resource and the qualifying detail front-loaded; no filler. The parenthetical enumeration earns its place by telling the agent what kinds of changes to expect, though the sentence is grammatically heavy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more: both parameters are optional, yet the default comparison window and the shape/magnitude of results are unstated. It is adequate for a two-filter read tool but leaves a real gap around defaults.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'bank' (slug or entity id, omit for all) and 'since' (ISO minimum effective date). The description only restates that results are filterable by bank and date, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema — the baseline 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 names the resource precisely ('changements de tarifs détectés entre deux éditions d'une même source') and even enumerates the change kinds returned (hausse, baisse, gratuit/payant, conditions modifiées), so an agent can tell it apart from get_bank_fees or get_fee_history. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 implied by the phrase 'détectés entre deux éditions' — the agent can infer this is for delta/churn questions rather than current-fee lookups. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_fee_history or get_bank_fees, and no statement of what happens if 'since' is omitted (which editions are compared by default).

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