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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes what the tool returns: the fee schedule, comparison details, FX spreads, and settlement times. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, and the description adds meaningful detail about the scope of the data, though it does not mention authentication or side effects (which are likely unnecessary for a read-only fee lookup).

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds specific comparative details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description is complete enough by explicitly listing the return content: cross-border invoice fee schedule, SWIFT wire comparison, FX spreads, and settlement times. Since the tool has no inputs, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know.

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 is empty, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it appropriately focuses on the output content.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: cross-border invoice fee schedule and SWIFT wire comparison. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fee-related data (Hive vs. typical SMB wire fees, FX spreads, settlement times), not invoice creation, disputes, or listings.

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 implies usage when fee schedule or SWIFT comparison information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough to infer context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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