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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which lowers the bar. The description adds only the optional-symbol scoping detail, but it does not clarify the default behavior when symbols are omitted or any other request constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core operation and the only parameter's optional nature.

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 one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the tool is close to complete. However, the vague phrase 'repeated symbols' and the unstated default behavior when symbols are omitted leave room for an agent to mis-scope its request.

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 description tells the agent that symbols are optional and can be repeated, which is a small addition beyond the schema. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, it does not fully compensate by explaining matching behavior, the all-symbols default, or how duplicates are handled.

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 operation as 'Get exchange trade-fee data,' naming both the action and the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on candles, tickers, trades, or rates.

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 use case is implied by naming the resource, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or what happens when no symbols are passed. There are no exclusions or alternative-tool references.

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