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 does disclose 'Lecture seule' and mentions provenance fields (sources, collection dates), which is useful behavioural context. It says nothing about what happens with an unknown or outdated slug, whether missing editions error or return empty, or about result volume.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the resource and its contents come first, then the exclusions, then the read-only note. No redundant sentences, though the term 'limites' is left unexplained and mildly dilutes the precision.

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 simple one-optional-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, and it partially compensates for the absent output schema by listing the kinds of content returned. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the shape of the response and the no-argument default behaviour.

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% and the single parameter already documents the slug format and the omit-for-latest default. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it also does not clarify edition-selection semantics from its own text.

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 identifies a specific resource: an archived edition of bank fees containing fixed statements, sources, collection dates and limits. It is clearly distinguishable from current-rate and total-cost tools, although the resource is stated as a noun phrase rather than with an explicit retrieval verb and no sibling tool is named.

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?

It gives explicit negative guidance: 'Ni tarifs actuels ni coût total du compte' rules out the current-tariff case and the annual-cost case, which are exactly what siblings get_bank_fees and compare_annual_cost cover. It does not name those siblings or state the positive condition (for example, 'use when you need historical provenance').

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