xbrl_extract_text

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by clarifying that it extracts human-readable text (not XBRL data) and explaining the max_chars limit. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which are consistent. No contradictions.

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 well-structured and concise: it leads with the main purpose, lists sections, provides usage context, then specifies args/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?

Given the presence of a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It explains the type of text extracted and section options but could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., filing must be loaded).

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?

While the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, the tool's description only briefly mentions 'Filing ID, section name, and max characters'. Since schema coverage is effectively high (descriptions in schema), the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 it extracts clean text from a specific section of a loaded filing, distinguishes between human-readable text and XBRL data, and lists the exact sections available. It is specific and differentiates from siblings like xbrl_extract_facts (facts) and xbrl_get_raw_xml.

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 provides explicit use cases like MD&A analysis and risk assessment, which guide the agent on when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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