xbrl_run_formula

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by specifying the types of assertions run and the return format (pass/fail JSON). No contradiction 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 concise with three short paragraphs; it front-loads the main purpose. The 'Args:' section is slightly redundant given the schema, but overall efficient.

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 what the tool does, the types of assertions, and the return format. With an existing output schema and rich annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Could explicitly mention that the filing must be loaded first, but it's implied by the filing_id parameter.

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?

Although context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, the input schema actually includes descriptions for both filing_id and trace. The description only briefly mentions 'Filing ID and trace option', adding little beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 action ('Execute XBRL formulas') and the resource ('defined in the filing's linkbase'), and specifies the types of assertions (value, existence, consistency). It distinguishes from sibling tools like xbrl_list_formulas (which lists formulas) and validation tools like 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 implies usage after loading a filing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like xbrl_validate or xbrl_list_formulas. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parameter description.

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