xbrl_browse_taxonomy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context: that the DTS includes both standard and extension concepts, and that results include pagination info.

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?

Description is two sentences plus an Args/Returns block. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns section is slightly redundant given the schema, but not overly verbose.

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 filters, nested params), the description adequately explains scope and return format. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. The required filing_id is explained in the schema description.

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 descriptions already cover each parameter (filing_id, search, concept_type, etc.). The description merely summarizes filters as 'name, type, namespace, or whether concepts have facts', adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'search and browse concepts in the filing's taxonomy (DTS)', specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like xbrl_concept_details or xbrl_search_sec_concept by focusing on the filing's own taxonomy set.

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?

Description implies usage (filtering concepts) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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