xbrl_get_footnotes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context (returns JSON, takes args). It does not contradict annotations, but does not provide additional behavioral insights beyond what annotations declare.

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 (8 lines), well-structured with a header sentence, context paragraph, and parameter listing. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy or verbosity.

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 tool's purpose, input parameters (briefly), and return format. Schema provides detailed param descriptions, and an output schema exists (not shown but noted). Missing are prerequisites (e.g., use after xbrl_load_filing, though implied by filing_id description) and error handling, but overall completeness is high for a simple read 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?

Schema descriptions already cover all parameters (filing_id, concept_name, limit) with clear descriptions. The tool description merely repeats a summary of args (filing ID, optional concept filter, limit) without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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 'Extract footnotes linked to XBRL facts' with a specific verb and resource. It adds context about the purpose of footnotes in XBRL and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing solely on footnote extraction.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., xbrl_extract_facts for all facts). No when-not or alternative tool mentions are present.

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