xbrl_anomaly_detection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the types of anomalies checked and the return format (JSON with list, severity, descriptions). However, it does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, authorization needs, or potential side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 concise, with a clear list of checks and a structured Args/Returns format. The line 'Args: params: Filing ID.' is somewhat redundant but does not harm readability significantly.

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 tool's complexity (multiple anomaly checks) and the presence of an output schema (declared but not shown), the description covers the inputs, outputs, and key behaviors. It could be improved by specifying the output schema structure more precisely, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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?

Context indicates 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It states 'Filing ID' but is redundant with the schema's description 'filing_id from xbrl_load_filing'. It adds no extra meaning or format details, leaving the parameter underdefined.

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 detects unusual patterns in filings and lists specific checks (negative values, extreme changes, calculation mismatches, missing concepts, zero values). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xbrl_validate or xbrl_check_calculations, which focus on validation or calculation verification.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage after loading a filing (since it takes a filing_id), but does not mention scenarios where other tools should be preferred or provide decision criteria.

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