get_commissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get trading commissions' which is a tautology of the tool name. It doesn't mention side effects, return format, rate limits, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise with only one short sentence and no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, though it could arguably be too brief to be useful.

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?

The tool is simple but the description is insufficiently complete. There is no output schema, so return values are undefined. No usage context, no mention of what trading commissions are, and no alternative guidance. The overall picture is incomplete for an agent to know when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents account_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient.

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 says 'Get trading commissions' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource 'commissions' is distinct from order book, prices, trades, etc., so the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only context given is the optional account_id parameter's fallback behavior, but there is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria.

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