get_ffd_concepts_by_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the internal merge logic (companyfacts API plus Exhibit 107 parsing), notes the lag characteristics of each source, and mentions that each entry is tagged with its source. It does not address potential rate limits or error behavior, but the key behavioral trait—data assembly from multiple sources—is well documented.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, subsequent sentences provide essential behavioral details, and the final sentence gives an alternative tool pointer. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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 moderate complexity, a non-trivial merge of two sources, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main purpose, source behavior, filtering options, and alternative tools. It does not detail the exact return structure (e.g., field names), but the tool name and description imply a list of tagged fee facts, which is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'limit' only affects the Exhibit 107 backfill phase, and clarifies the semantics of 'concepts' and 'form_types' filters (e.g., omitting returns everything). This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 purpose: to get a company's complete ffd (filing fee history) by merging two data sources. It specifies the resource (fee-related facts across form types) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_fee_exhibit, which is used for a different granularity of data.

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 concrete usage guidance: it explains when this tool is appropriate (complete filing fee history across form types) and explicitly names an alternative (get_fee_exhibit for per-security-class line-item breakdowns of a single filing). It also clarifies the role of the limit parameter in the backfill phase, giving actionable context.

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