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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read. The description adds the underlying REST path (GET /proposals/{id}/fees/{fee_id}.json), which is mildly useful for tracing behavior but says nothing about what a fee line contains, error cases, or permission needs.

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 purpose. The REST path is arguably redundant for an agent, but it is brief and does no harm.

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 could sketch what a fee line returns (amount, description, section linkage), and it doesn't. For a simple two-param read this is adequate to invoke but thin for interpreting the result.

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 both parameters already document themselves as positive integers. The description only mirrors them via the endpoint template ({id}, {fee_id}) and adds no semantics such as whether fee_id must belong to proposal_id.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one fee line of a proposal), which distinguishes it from list_proposal_fees and from the global get_fee. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from 'of a proposal'.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus bidsketch_list_proposal_fees or bidsketch_get_fee. The word 'one' weakly implies singular lookup, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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