xbrl_dimension_structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the return format (JSON) and the conceptual explanation of dimensions, without contradicting 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 5 sentences, front-loading the main purpose and including an example. It could be slightly trimmed but is well-structured and 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?

Given the complexity of XBRL dimensions and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the concept, input, and return format. Minor gaps like performance implications are not critical for a read-only tool with idempotentHint.

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% at the top level, but individual parameters in the schema have detailed descriptions (filing_id, dimension_name, max_members). The description restates 'Filing ID and optional dimension filter' without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 the dimensional structure of a filing,' which is a specific verb and resource. It explains XBRL Dimensions, mentions returns (hypercubes, dimensions, axes, domains, members), and gives an example with ProductOrServiceAxis. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xbrl_presentation_tree or xbrl_calculation_tree.

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 retrieving dimensional breakdowns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with siblings are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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