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

readOnlyHint=true in annotations already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the returned field set and endpoint, but says nothing about not-found/error behavior or whether fees can be missing, leaving behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields. The endpoint path is slightly redundant but still earns its place by signaling a single-item fetch.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the read-only annotation covers safety. It omits error/not-found behavior, but for a single-param read that gap is minor.

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 fee_id schema description is rich, referencing bidsketch_list_fees. The description's endpoint format '/fees/{id}.json' marginally reinforces that the id is a path identifier, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb (get) and resource (saved fee) and enumerates returned fields (amount, quantity, unit, description). The 'saved fee' framing distinguishes it from the proposal-fee siblings at a high level, though it never explicitly contrasts with bidsketch_get_proposal_fee.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus bidsketch_list_fees or bidsketch_get_proposal_fee, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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