get_filing_history_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Get the detail,' implying a safe read operation, but does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or any side effects. With zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool, though could benefit from slightly more detail.

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 has 2 required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to obtain transaction_id or any prerequisites. The output schema exists but the description provides no context about return values or error scenarios.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'company_number' and 'transaction_id' but adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not clarify formats, sources, or constraints.

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 'Get the detail of a single filing history item for a company.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (filing history item), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_filing_history which lists multiple items.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. The description implies it's for a single item when a transaction_id is available, but does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. Score reflects the lack of usage context.

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