calculate_filing_fees

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It details the return structure (line items with CFR citations, total, excluded costs, practical note) and explicitly lists what is NOT included, which prevents user misconceptions.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the purpose and then expanding into returns and usage. It's longer than the 'two-sentence ideal' but every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers inputs, outputs, exclusions, and a prerequisite call. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning behind independent/total claim counts, multiple dependent claims, page count, and entity status, tying them to fee rules. It doesn't explicitly describe filing_type values, but the schema already enumerates them.

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 ('Compute') with a precise resource (USPTO filing fees under 37 CFR 1.16) and enumerates each fee component, making its purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_uspto_form or calculate_response_deadline.

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 explicitly states use cases ('budgeting and comparing scenarios') and mentions calling check_entity_status first when uncertain. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the context is clear enough.

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