XBRL financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds the important behavioral trait of a potential size cap and the _truncated note, which is not captured in annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope, and the second sentence provides usage guidelines and alternatives. No wasted words.

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 complexity of fetching a complete XBRL bundle, the description adequately covers the scope, the large payload warning, and the alternatives. It does not require an output schema explanation since none is provided.

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 100%, and the single parameter 'ticker' has a clear description in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states the tool fetches a company's complete XBRL financials bundle, specifying the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'complete XBRL financials bundle' from SEC filings. It distinguishes from siblings by naming stocks_financial_concept and stocks_ratios.

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 provides when to use this tool versus alternatives: for a single line item use stocks_financial_concept, and for computed ratios use stocks_ratios. It also warns about the size cap and the _truncated note.

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