export_fee_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing key side effects: it writes to a specified output_path or defaults to a local file, and it returns CSV text in structuredContent.csvText for local reconstruction. This gives callers a clear understanding of the tool's write behavior and return value, though it stops short of discussing error handling or edge cases.

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, only three sentences, but it packs a lot of information about modes, file output, and return value. Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of context, though the long enumeration of modes makes it slightly dense.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, this description provides a solid overview of purpose, modes, output behavior, and return format. It doesn't outline the exact CSV column structure for each mode, but that is reasonably inferred from the mode descriptions and is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Since the schema already describes all five parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds limited but meaningful value by clarifying default filename patterns and by expanding on the 'mode' enum with concrete definitions for fee_history, line_items, and ffd_concepts. This goes beyond simply restating parameter names.

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 'Query SEC fee data and save it as a CSV file', identifying a specific verb, resource, and output format. It also enumerates three distinct modes, which helps distinguish this export-focused tool from sibling retrieval tools like get_company_fee_history and get_ffd_concepts_by_company.

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 provides useful context by explaining the three modes and the default output file, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that if no CSV export is needed, callers might prefer get_company_fee_history instead.

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