search_detailed_financial_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it parses XBRL files and returns text with detailed items, and explains the behavior of the optional statement_type. However, it lacks details on error handling, data freshness, or edge cases, making it only moderately transparent.

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 summary, Args, and Returns sections. It is concise and easy to scan, though the opening phrase restates the tool name, making it slightly redundant.

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 purpose, parameters, and return type adequately for a 4-parameter tool with an output schema. However, it lacks usage guidance and has the ctx inconsistency, leaving some gaps 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 Arg values section provides examples for company_name, start_date, end_date, and describes statement_type options, which compensates for 0% schema coverage. However, the inclusion of 'ctx' as an argument not present in the schema creates inconsistency and potential confusion for the agent, lowering the score.

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 tool provides detailed financial information by parsing XBRL files, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_json_financial_data, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage for detailed financial data but does not mention any trade-offs, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like search_json_financial_data. This is a clear gap.

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