xbrl_dts_comparison

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the output (JSON with changes) and input (two filing IDs). No contradictory or hidden behaviors are present.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and includes separate sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value without 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?

While the description covers the core purpose and output, it lacks context on when to use this tool over similar siblings (e.g., xbrl_compare_filings) and does not explain the DTS concept. The output schema exists, reducing the need for return value details, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 only states 'Two filing IDs' for the params parameter. The schema has 0% coverage for the top-level parameter, and the nested properties have descriptions, but the description does not clarify the parameter structure or roles (baseline vs comparison). This is insufficient to guide an agent.

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 compares two taxonomy/filing schemas and specifies what is identified (added/removed/changed concepts, relationships, labels). It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like xbrl_compare_filings by focusing on structural schema comparison.

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 comparing two DTS/filings but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. Given many sibling tools, it would benefit from stating exclusions or similar tools like xbrl_compare_filings.

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