compare_fee_rates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific output fields (latest registration form, total offering, net fee due, fee rate) and adds an important interpretive caveat about SEC fee rates being uniform and differences reflecting rounding or alternate calculation rules. It does not mention error handling or data source limitations, but the provided context is meaningful.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds essential output details and a valuable caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It lists the key fields it shows and includes a necessary note about fee rate interpretation. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 fully describes the only parameter: companies (2-8 company identifiers). The description adds 'side by side' and lists output fields, but does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With schema coverage at 100%, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Compare Exhibit 107 filing fee data across 2-8 companies side by side.' It names a specific verb ('compare'), a specific resource (Exhibit 107 filing fee data), and a clear scope (2-8 companies), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fee_exhibit or search_fee_filings.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a side-by-side comparison of fee data for 2-8 companies. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over single-company lookup or search tools.

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