get_fee_exhibit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return contents and the auto-detection behavior when exhibit_filename is omitted. However, it does not mention failure modes, error handling, or any side effects, leaving moderate gaps in expected 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?

Three tight sentences cover purpose, required inputs, optional parameter optimization, and return contents with no fluff. Information is front-loaded and every clause contributes meaning.

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 compensates by detailing the return payload (security classes, offering amounts, fee rates, etc.). It is sufficient for the tool's moderate complexity, though it misses edge cases like 'exhibit not found' or distinguishing from similar fee-seeking tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that exhibit_filename accelerates parsing and that omission triggers server-side auto-detection. It also reinforces the requirement for accession_number and cik, which helps the agent understand the relationship between parameters.

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 ('Fetch and parse') and a concrete resource ('a specific Exhibit 107 (EX-FILING FEES)'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling search/history tools. It also outlines exactly what is returned (all ffd XBRL concepts), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 states the required inputs (accession_number + cik) and offers optional guidance for faster parsing (exhibit_filename). It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like search_fee_filings or compare_fee_rates, but the prerequisites and optional behavior provide clear operational context.

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