Filing Notes & Disclosures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful source detail (dimensional XBRL filings) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as coverage limits or return shape. No contradiction exists.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core data type and source. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 simple two-parameter schema, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The only notable gap is lack of guidance about how this relates to sibling statement tools, but this is a minor omission for a read-only notes retrieval tool.

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 100%; both ticker and period are fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource returned: footnote disclosures from a US company's dimensional XBRL filings. This is distinct enough from siblings like get_quote or get_fundamentals, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_statement. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action, which keeps it from a 5.

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 such as get_statement or get_fundamentals. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about which scenarios call for footnotes specifically. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and title.

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