xbrl_trend_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds context about period count per filing type, which is useful but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured clearly with Args and Returns sections. No redundant words or 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 moderate complexity, annotations cover safety, and output schema likely documents return structure, the description provides essential context (filing types, period count) and clarifies return format (JSON with per-concept period values and changes). Slightly lacking in explaining period granularity, but overall adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'Filing ID and list of concepts' and shows default concepts, but does not explain the format of period identification, how changes are computed, or provide details beyond what is in the schema. This is insufficient to fully guide parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states this tool analyzes trends across periods within a single filing, distinguishing from cross-filing comparison (xbrl_compare_filings) and ratio computation (xbrl_financial_ratios). It specifies filing types (10-K, 10-Q) and what it computes (absolute/percentage changes).

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?

Description implies using this tool for intra-filing trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternative tools. Agent can infer context but lacks clear exclusionary guidance.

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