xbrl_smart_summary

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output format (<4K tokens JSON), content (company info, key metrics, etc.), and focus on LLM efficiency, enriching 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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes Args and Returns sections, though the structure could be improved by separating behavior from parameter details. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (single param, simple output), the description sufficiently covers return format and content. With output schema present, missing details are acceptable. Adequate for agent invocation.

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 description only vaguely mentions 'Filing ID and focus area' without elaborating on their semantics or constraints. Despite schema descriptions existing, the tool description fails to compensate for the 0% coverage, offering minimal parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('structured summary of a filing'), and highlights its LLM-optimized compact nature. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'xbrl_filing_summary', leaving ambiguity.

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 mentions being designed for LLM context windows but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., xbrl_filing_summary, xbrl_company_facts). No when-not or explicit usage context.

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