xbrl_list_formulas

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond stating it lists items; it does not explain what DTS means or any limitations. It does not contradict 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 very concise with two sentences plus Args/Returns. The first sentence front-loads the key purpose, and every word serves a purpose with no 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and a return string, the description provides essential information: what is listed and the return format. It is mostly complete, though details about the JSON structure could be added. An output schema is not provided, so the description compensates adequately.

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 already provides a description for the 'filing_id' parameter ('The filing_id from xbrl_load_filing'). The description's mention of 'Filing ID' adds no new semantic value, so it meets the baseline for adequate 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 that the tool lists all formulas, assertions, and validation rules in a filing's DTS. It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like xbrl_run_formula and xbrl_validate.

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 versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for selection are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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