Get Fee Rates

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit on top by stating there are no arguments and enumerating the payload (payin/payout/transfer spreads and fixed fees, user_markup, daily/monthly volume limits in BRL), which the agent would otherwise have to infer since there is no output schema.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose, then the no-argument note and the return contents. Nothing extraneous, though the blank-line break and the short 'No arguments.' sentence could have been folded into the first line without loss.

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 read tool with no output schema but rich annotations, this is complete: the agent knows the call takes no inputs, what categories of data come back, and that limits are denominated in BRL. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description explicitly confirms 'No arguments,' preventing an agent from speculating about optional filters. There is no meaningful parameter detail it could add beyond this.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get the current platform fee rates and limits applied to the tenant' — and adds the tenant scoping that distinguishes it from global/partner fee tools. It stops short of naming siblings like ashar_get_partner_fee or ashar_get_user_markup as alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent reads this when it needs the tenant's fee schedule or limits. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives such as ashar_get_partner_fee, and no mention that this tool is the authoritative source for current pricing before building a quote.

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