get_fee_schedule_source

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses return content: document name, URL, effective date, fee line status (published vs estimated), basis, and share. It also notes the premium cost model, providing complete behavioral insight.

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 detailed but each sentence contributes meaningful information, from core purpose to return details and payment. It could be slightly shorter, but it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return value. Complexity is moderate, and the description covers purpose, input options, output details, and cost model, making it complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying mutual exclusivity ('Provide this OR address') and emphasizing that at least one must be provided, which is not explicit in 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the published fee-schedule source, per-fee provenance, document details, and published vs. estimated shares. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_dev_costs' or 'get_fee_breakdown' by focusing on traceability and defensibility.

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 specifies to pass 'jurisdiction' or 'address' and mentions premium payment methods. It implies usage when traceable source data is needed but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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