get_filing_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return content ('most recent' ordering and the filing types returned), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result volume/pagination behavior beyond the page-size parameter.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then usage context, then Args — a clean and skimmable structure. The parenthetical example lists add some length but earn their place by clarifying scope.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out. For a simple two-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, triggers, and parameter formats adequately; only pagination/ordering details are thin.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains company_number accepts leading zeros optionally and gives the items_per_page range (1-100) — details absent from the schema. Both parameters receive meaningful documentation, though deeper format/validation guidance is limited.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves 'the most recent filings a company has made at Companies House', with concrete examples (confirmation statements, accounts, officer changes). This clearly distinguishes it from get_company (company details) and search_companies without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('spotting dormancy, late accounts, or a change of directors last week'), which tells the agent the practical triggers for calling it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the top tier but is well above mere implication.

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