Show Filing Type

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds no information about permissions, rate limits, or response structure beyond stating it returns a JSON object. It also incorrectly refers to 'Incidents' instead of 'Filing Type', reducing reliability.

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 three sentences, efficiently covering purpose, usage hint, and endpoint details without fluff. Front-loads the core action in the first sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the response structure but only says 'JSON object'. It omits mention of optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) and the fact that this is a read-only endpoint, despite annotations covering that. The inconsistency about 'Incidents' further reduces completeness.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description only repeats that company_id and id are required, which adds no new semantic meaning beyond the 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 that the tool returns a specified Filing Type using its identifier, distinguishing it from list operations like list_incident_filing_types. However, there is a minor inconsistency when it mentions 'Incidents' instead of 'Filing Type', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 explains to use this tool to fetch full details of a specific Filing Type by its identifier, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Usage is implied but lacks exclusion criteria.

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