get_xbrl

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: raw returns original ZIP, markdown is filtered (50 tags, 3 years, 3 columns, ~8KB), markdown_full includes full taxonomy with calculation verification (~30-60KB). No contradictions or missing destructive hints.

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?

Single sentence with a dash structure efficiently conveys all key options and their characteristics. No extraneous information; every part is informative.

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 6 parameters, 3 enums, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's core functionality and format trade-offs. However, it could explicitly state when to choose each format (e.g., raw for full data, markdown for quick analysis) and what the output structure looks like.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the format options' implications (e.g., file sizes, industry-specific auto response) and connecting parameters like fs_div and out_dir to specific formats, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves XBRL financial statements and explicitly differentiates three format options (raw, markdown, markdown_full) with specifics about each, such as file sizes and content 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_financials or get_periodic_report. Usage context is implied through format descriptions but not directly stated.

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