search_detailed_financial_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions parsing XBRL files and returning text with financial details, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description provides basic functional information but lacks behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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 with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value description. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences. The only minor improvement would be more explicit sibling differentiation, but overall it's efficiently organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering the basics: purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects (safety, limits, errors) and doesn't help the agent choose between similar tools. Given the complexity of financial data extraction, more guidance would be beneficial.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters: company_name (with examples), start_date/end_date (format and examples), statement_type (enum values and None behavior), and even mentions ctx parameter. This adds crucial meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 tool's purpose: '회사의 세부적인 재무 정보를 제공하는 도구' (provides detailed financial information for companies) and 'XBRL 파일을 파싱하여 상세한 재무 데이터를 추출합니다' (parses XBRL files to extract detailed financial data). This specifies both the action (parse/extract) and resource (financial data from XBRL files), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_json_financial_data'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_json_financial_data' or 'search_disclosure', nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between available options.

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