xbrl_calculation_tree

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

Annotations declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description confirms read-only access and adds that the tool returns a JSON string with trees, weights, and components. No contradictions.

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 brief, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured with an example and return type. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 XBRL calculation trees, the description explains the concept and return format. The output schema likely covers the JSON structure, so the description is sufficient. No critical gaps identified.

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 schema already documents each parameter well (filing_id, concept_name, role_filter). The description adds the weight explanation (+1/-1) not in schema, but otherwise adds little beyond what schema provides. Schema coverage is high, 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 'Get calculation relationships showing how totals are computed' with an explicit example (Assets = CurrentAssets + NoncurrentAssets). This distinguishes it from siblings like xbrl_presentation_tree and xbrl_check_calculations.

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 implies usage for understanding calculation relationships but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives, though sibling tool names suggest other relationship types.

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