get_company_fee_history

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 that the tool fetches and parses multiple documents, returns a structured fee table per filing plus grand totals, and is slower than get_fee_exhibit. This gives a clear behavioral profile for a read-only aggregation tool, though it omits potential edge cases or error behavior.

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, each earning its place. It front-loads the core action, then describes the return value, then provides use-case and performance context. No filler or redundancy.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description does explain the return format ('full structured fee table for each filing plus grand totals'). It also contextualizes the tool's multi-filing nature and performance trade-off. It is fairly complete for a read-only fetch tool, though it does not detail request/response examples or error conditions.

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 input schema has full 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself is sufficient, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Fetch and parse all Exhibit 107 fee exhibits'), names the resource ('for a company across multiple filings'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_fee_exhibit by emphasizing the multi-filing scope. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Best for understanding a company's full offering history and total fees paid' and contrasts with get_fee_exhibit ('Slower than get_fee_exhibit since it fetches and parses multiple documents'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention other sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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