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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it partially meets it by declaring 'Lecture seule' (read-only) and by disclosing that the payload carries source and collection-date provenance. It says nothing about error behaviour, rate limits, or freshness beyond the collection date, leaving the mutation-safety and failure-mode picture incomplete.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the resource and its sections, followed by a short safety marker. Nothing is padded or repeated. The parenthetical list is dense but earns its place by describing the returned sections.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does so by enumerating the fee categories plus source and collection date. Combined with the schema's documented valid_ids fallback, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only cross-tool positioning is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents bank_id fully, including the slug format and the valid_ids fallback for unknown ids. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, so 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?

The description names the specific resource (a bank's structured fee schedule) and enumerates its sections (account maintenance, card, incidents, foreign, intervention commission) plus the provenance fields (source and collection date). That is far more concrete than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings such as get_fees_barometer or get_tariff_changes, so the agent must infer the split.

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 one bank's full tariff sheet. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over compare_banks, get_fees_barometer or get_fee_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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