list_filing_history

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action as listing but fails to mention it is read-only, how pagination works, or error handling for invalid inputs.

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 at one sentence, but it lacks structure and does not fully justify its brevity given the need for parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the main action but is too minimal.

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 4 parameters and siblings (e.g., get_filing_history_item), the description provides insufficient context for correct invocation. It fails to address pagination, filtering by category, or distinguish from the single-item retrieval sibling.

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 4 parameters (category, start_index, company_number, items_per_page). The description only mentions the general resource, leaving parameters entirely unexplained.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'company's filing history' with examples of included document types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool get_filing_history_item, which retrieves a single filing item.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_filing_history_item, nor any prerequisites (e.g., valid company_number) or context for pagination parameters.

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