xbrl_concept_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the output contains (JSON with comprehensive concept information) and does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral details are provided beyond 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 concise with 6 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a bullet-like listing for returned information, making it scannable. However, the Args and Returns section could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers the return format. It explains the input parameters sufficiently. However, it lacks notes on error handling or cases where the concept is not found, which would improve completeness.

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 mentions 'Filing ID and concept name' as parameters, adding minimal context beyond the schema's nested property descriptions. With 0% schema description coverage (top-level params missing description), the tool description compensates partially but still lacks depth.

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 gets full details for a taxonomy concept, listing the specific information returned (labels, references, data type, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xbrl_browse_taxonomy or xbrl_fact_details by focusing on comprehensive concept introspection.

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. It mentions the required parameters (filing_id and concept_name) but does not indicate when this is preferable to related tools like xbrl_search_sec_concept or xbrl_fact_details.

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