List the charges (mortgages, secured debt) registered against a company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing return behavior (empty list for no charges, 501 for unsupported jurisdictions), and warns that some jurisdictions may have separate registers not covered. No contradictions.

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 structured with a clear first sentence defining the tool's purpose, followed by a breakdown of return data and critical caveats. It is front-loaded with the primary function. Minor redundancy exists in listing charge types similar to the title.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It addresses complexity: jurisdiction-specific behavior, alternatives for unsupported jurisdictions, and guidance to list_jurisdictions. The three parameters are placed in context, and the empty-list behavior is clarified.

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 33% (only jurisdiction has a description). The description compensates by explaining the role of jurisdiction in determining scope and directing to list_jurisdictions for details. It does not describe company_id or fresh, but the output schema and context reduce ambiguity. The fresh parameter's meaning is implied by context, but not explicitly stated.

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 returns charges registered against a company, enumerates the data fields, and distinguishes it as the primary tool for security-interest and lender analysis. It differentiates from siblings like get_company_profile and list_filings by specifying scope and alternatives.

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 explains when to use this tool (primary for charges), notes scope limitations (registry-specific, separate registers), and mentions that unsupported jurisdictions return 501 and may suggest list_filings as an alternative. It also advises calling list_jurisdictions for per-country caveats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus other tools.

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