xbrl_export_concepts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns JSON with a concept list but does not disclose details like error handling, performance, or pagination. It adds some value beyond 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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured args/returns section. Every sentence is necessary, though it could be more organized.

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 description covers the basic purpose and return type, but with many sibling tools, it lacks differentiating context. It does not explain the limit parameter or potential edge cases. An output schema exists, so return values are specified, but overall completeness is adequate.

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 input schema has detailed descriptions for each parameter, but the tool description only gives a brief summary. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself compensates. The description adds little beyond the schema.

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 states the tool exports taxonomy concepts as structured data, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xbrl_export_json or xbrl_concept_details, which may be confused.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xbrl_export_csv or xbrl_concept_details. The description only explains what it does, not the context of use.

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