xbrl_check_calculations

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it reports mismatches but does not elaborate on side effects or error handling. No contradiction with 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 concise with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a brief explanation and parameter list. The Args/Returns section adds only minor redundancy, but overall structure is efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context for prerequisites (e.g., filing must be loaded via xbrl_load_filing), error conditions, or edge cases. Given the complexity of XBRL calculations, more guidance would be beneficial.

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 description merely lists parameter names from the schema ('Filing ID, optional concept filter, max results') without adding semantic meaning. Despite context indicating 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining parameter formats, defaults (max_results default=20, max=100), or how concept_name filters.

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 verifies calculation consistency for totals and components, using specific verbs like 'verify' and 'compares'. It distinguishes from many sibling tools (e.g., xbrl_validate, xbrl_run_formula) by focusing on calculation relationships, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 the tool is used for calculation verification, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like xbrl_validate or xbrl_anomaly_detection. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are provided.

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