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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by naming the returned fields (fee amount, surplus/deficit, multiplier), which is useful because there is no output schema. It does not describe edge cases, error behavior, or whether values are live versus cached, so it remains moderate.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states what the tool returns. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 read-only getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete because it names the key returned fields. The main missing context is how this tool relates to the sibling get_outbound_fees, but the core invocation information is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single asset parameter is documented in the schema with an example format (e.g. BTC.BTC). The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: returns outbound fee information for a specific asset. It also names the returned data fields (fee amount, surplus/deficit tracking, dynamic multiplier), making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this per-asset tool from the sibling get_outbound_fees, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for a specific asset' implies the tool should be used when an asset-specific outbound fee is needed, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_outbound_fees or get_outbound_queue, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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