xbrl_validate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool loads, validates, and closes in one operation, which is useful but minimal extra behavioral context. No contradictions 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 well-structured with a clear purpose, followed by behavior, supported systems, and return value. It is mostly concise, though the Args and Returns sections could be trimmed since the schema and output schema already provide that detail.

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 rich annotations and schemas, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and return values. However, it lacks guidance on selecting this tool over siblings like xbrl_validate_extended, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, each with detailed explanations. The description only mentions 'Filing path and validation options' generically, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it validates an XBRL/iXBRL filing against a disclosure system. It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like xbrl_load_filing by noting it loads, validates, and closes in one operation. The listing of supported disclosure systems further clarifies its scope.

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 the tool does not require preloading and lists disclosure systems, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like xbrl_validate_extended or say when not to use this tool. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are provided.

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