xbrl_close_filing

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact memory freed (30-60MB per filing). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description provides specific impact details. It does not mention idempotency explicitly, but the annotations cover that.

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: two sentences plus Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The main action and key outcome are front-loaded.

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?

For a simple close operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, memory impact, and return type. It omits error cases or prerequisites (e.g., filing must be loaded), but annotations and schema provide some context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the tool description only repeats schema info ('params (FilingIdInput): The filing_id to close') without adding new semantics. The schema already describes the filing_id parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 action 'close a loaded filing' and highlights the key benefit of freeing memory (30-60MB). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xbrl_load_filing and xbrl_filing_summary.

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 after loading a filing to free memory, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor mention alternatives. The context from siblings suggests a cleanup role, but no direct guidance is provided.

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