xbrl_financial_ratios

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns liquidity, profitability, leverage, per-share ratios and interpretations. No contradictions, but doesn't disclose potential limitations like data availability for all ratios.

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?

Relatively concise but contains an inaccuracy: 'Args: params: Filing ID' incorrectly names the parameter (actual parameter is filing_id inside the params object). This could mislead an AI agent. The structure is otherwise acceptable.

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?

With an output schema present (context signal), the description adequately summarizes return type and content. However, the misnamed parameter and lack of prerequisites details slightly reduce completeness. Adequate for a simple, single-parameter tool with good annotations.

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?

Only one parameter (filing_id) which is already described in the schema as 'The filing_id from xbrl_load_filing'. The description mentions 'params: Filing ID' but misnames the parameter (should be filing_id). It doesn't add meaningful information beyond the schema, but with >80% schema coverage, 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?

Describes computing standard financial ratios from a loaded filing, listing specific categories (liquidity, profitability, leverage, per-share). Verb 'compute' and resource 'ratios' are clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling analysis tools like xbrl_trend_analysis or xbrl_peer_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?

Implies the filing must be loaded via xbrl_load_filing, providing context. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., trend analysis, anomaly detection) or exclusions.

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