xbrl_peer_comparison

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds 'No filing load required' and 'Returns a ranked list,' confirming read-only behavior and output format. No contradictions exist, and the description adds modest behavioral context beyond 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 concise, with a clear header sentence, a useful behavioral note ('No filing load required'), and a bullet-like listing of args and returns. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the arg list could be integrated more elegantly. No unnecessary sentences.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the API source, the output format (JSON with ranked list), and key behavioral trait (no filing load). It is complete for a read-only comparison tool, though it could mention potential error conditions or required permissions (e.g., valid period format).

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 description coverage is 0% for the top-level parameter, and the description only lists parameter names without adding meaning. While the nested schema includes some descriptions (e.g., concept, period format), the description does not compensate for the low coverage. It merely repeats parameter names, offering no additional clarification or examples.

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's purpose: 'Compare a concept across multiple companies using SEC EDGAR Frames API.' It specifies the action (compare), the resource (concept across companies), and the output (ranked list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xbrl_company_facts (single company facts) or xbrl_compare_filings (compare whole filings).

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 includes a key usage hint: 'No filing load required,' which informs when to use this tool (for quick cross-company comparisons without loading filings). It implies this tool is for high-level comparisons using pre-aggregated data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, missing an opportunity for clearer guidance.

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