xbrl_validate_extended

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 return format details (categorized results with severity filtering) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond these annotations. Value added is marginal.

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 (5 lines), front-loads the purpose, lists checks, then args and returns. No extraneous information. Efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains returned format. However, it lacks differentiation from the sibling 'xbrl_validate' tool and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded filing). Slightly incomplete.

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 reported as 0% (though schema has descriptions), so the description carries the burden. It summarizes args (filing ID/path, checks, severity filter) and adds return context not in schema. However, it does not detail individual parameter formats beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Extended validation with granular control over which checks to run' and lists supported checks (xbrl21, calculations, etc.). This distinguishes it from the simpler 'xbrl_validate' sibling tool and other validation-related tools, providing a specific verb+resource+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 implies usage for extended validation but does not explicitly contrast with 'xbrl_validate' or other sibling tools. No guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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