list_charges

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context: that a company with no charges returns an empty list rather than an error, and what kinds of charge information are included. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the resource and returned information, and the second sentence preempts an important edge case. There is no repetition of schema details or annotation fields, and every sentence earns its place.

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 combination of a rich input schema, an output schema, strong annotations, and the description's edge-case note makes this complete for an agent to invoke correctly. The description covers the key behavioral exception, while the schema and annotations handle parameters, return shape, and safety profile.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions are detailed, including company_number formatting, pagination semantics, and outstanding_only behavior. The tool description itself adds little parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List charges registered against a company' and enumerates the key returned aspects (holder, creation, satisfaction, floating charge scope). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on filings, officers, PSCs, and company profile data.

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 clearly positions this tool as the way to get charge information for a company and even clarifies edge-case behavior with an empty list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource categories of sibling tools are distinct enough that the usage context is clear.

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