Get Company Charges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about what a charge record includes and the specific representation of satisfaction (satisfied_on plus a filing, not a separate release). It also notes the source of company_profile.has_charges, which helps the agent understand the data relationship.

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 with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful detail about response contents, and the final sentence provides selection guidance. A small redundancy exists between 'complete charge history' and 'Returns every registered charge', but overall the text is efficient and every sentence contributes meaningful context.

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?

For a single-parameter fetch tool, the description fully explains what the tool returns, how to distinguish it from the summary field, and how an important edge case (satisfaction) is represented. The output schema exists to describe the response structure, so the description does not need to enumerate all fields. The combination of description, schema, and annotations provides everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema description coverage is 100%, fully documenting company_number with format and an example. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden successfully.

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 it fetches the complete Companies House charge history for a company. It explicitly contrasts with company_profile.has_charges, noting this tool should be used when specific charges matter. This differentiates it from sibling tools without needing to inspect other schemas.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus company_profile.has_charges: use this when the actual charge details matter, not just whether any charges exist. It also clarifies how satisfaction is represented, preventing misinterpretation. This is strong usage context that helps an agent select correctly.

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