xbrl_get_cover_page

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds value by specifying that it returns all DEI facts as a JSON string, giving clear behavioral expectations. No contradictions with 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 two sentences plus an Args/Returns section, all front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is concise and efficient, with no wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists (context says true), so the description need not detail return structure. It mentions the return type and content. However, it does not explicitly state the prerequisite that the filing_id comes from xbrl_load_filing, which the schema does. Overall, it is largely complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 a description for the nested parameter 'filing_id' stating 'The filing_id from xbrl_load_filing'. The tool description merely says 'Filing ID', which adds no new meaning. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's semantics underspecified.

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 extracts complete cover page data (DEI facts) from a filing, listing specific data points like company name, CIK, ticker. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on 'cover page' data, which no other tool explicitly does.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as xbrl_filing_summary or xbrl_get_exhibits. It implies usage for cover page extraction but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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