xbrl_presentation_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the presentation linkbase and how roles map to statements, which enhances understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the 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 and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, followed by contextual info, parameter usage, and an 'Args:'/'Returns:' block. No fluff, all sentences add value.

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 input complexity (nested object), the presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. No critical gaps.

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%, but the description explains key parameters: role_filter (substring match examples), max_depth (range and default), and list_roles_only (boolean behavior). However, the filing_id parameter is minimally described, and not all properties are fully detailed.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Get the presentation hierarchy (financial statement structure).' It differentiates from siblings like xbrl_calculation_tree by specifying 'presentation' vs. calculation relationships. Further details on role_filter and list_roles_only solidify purpose.

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 provides guidance on using role_filter to get a specific statement and list_roles_only to see available statements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like xbrl_render_statement or xbrl_calculation_tree, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool.

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