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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context by explaining it uses data from World Bank and ECB SDW for benchmarks and generates negotiation levers. It does not contradict annotations since it describes analysis without side effects.

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 four sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose and a keyword list. It is efficiently written, though the keyword list is somewhat redundant.

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 the annotations (read-only, idempotent) and the output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's inputs, analysis sources, and outcome. It covers the essential context for selecting and invoking the 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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including required fields and units. The description references fee types that map to schema parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's function: analyzing bank fee structures and providing negotiation recommendations. It identifies specific fee types (account maintenance, wire transfers, credit lines) and output (benchmark comparisons, cost reduction levers), distinguishing it from broader treasury tools.

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 provides context for use ('CFO-focused', 'Ideal for optimizing treasury operations'), implying it is for negotiating bank fees. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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