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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: one stepped rate on each shop's calendar month of card and bank payments, deducted from payments, no plans or monthly fee, no card on file. That is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from an empty schema. What it omits is whether the result is shop-specific or generic, and whether this is a static reference or a live 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 core fee mechanics are front-loaded and compact, but the closing sentence ('Every shop gets every feature and unlimited workers') reads as marketing filler that does little to help an agent decide or invoke. The 'no plans, no monthly fee, no card on file' clause is borderline but does convey exclusions, so it earns partial credit.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what data comes back, e.g. rate tiers, worked examples, or per-shop applicability. It explains the pricing model but not the shape or scope of the response, leaving the agent unsure what it will actually receive.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 the resource (Doing Work's fee schedule) and describes how fees work, so the agent knows this is a pricing/fee information tool. However, it never states what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings like fees_preview and fees_statement, which cover adjacent fee territory. The opening noun phrase is closer to a marketing blurb than a verb+resource statement.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as fees_preview or fees_statement, both of which appear in the sibling list and could plausibly be confused with this one. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a reference/informational call rather than a calculation or statement.

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