get_fee_recommendation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully discloses the dual-output nature (plain-English + raw rate data) but fails to mention operational traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or if it consumes API rate limits.

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 single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with the core action ('Get a plain-English fee recommendation') and adds qualifying details (data source, output format) without waste. Every clause earns its place in distinguishing this from raw data tools.

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?

Given the low complexity (zero parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns. It appropriately focuses on the interpretive nature of the output rather than repeating structural details covered by the schema.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (trivially). As per the rules, this establishes a baseline score of 4, which is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to describe.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('fee recommendation'), and distinctive format ('plain-English'). It implicitly differentiates from sibling 'get_fee_estimates' by emphasizing the human-readable interpretation aspect, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 description hints at when to use this tool (when you want plain-English interpretation rather than raw data) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidelines or named alternatives. The phrase 'based on current estimates' suggests volatility but doesn't clarify refresh frequency or caching behavior.

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