compare_concept

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ranking by value, but does not explain what the output looks like, whether it returns a list of filers and values, how limit affects results, or any other side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a compare tool.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the core function, the second provides necessary period constraints. Every sentence contributes meaning with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain what the result set contains (e.g., filer names, values, ranking), the role of unit and taxonomy, or the effect of limit. This makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the 'period' parameter with specific examples, but does not elaborate on 'tag', 'unit', 'limit', or 'taxonomy'. The description adds some value for period, but leaves other parameters unexplained.

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 a specific action: comparing one XBRL concept across all filers, ranked by value. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_concepts (listing concepts) and get_concept (retrieving a concept for a single entity). The verb and resource are explicit.

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 provides period format constraints (CY2023, CY2023Q1, CY2023Q1I), which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_concept or search_filings. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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