list_concepts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry transparency. It discloses that the tool returns only tags the company 'actually reports' (as opposed to standard tags) and that they are ordered 'most-reported first.' This adds behavioral context beyond the basic 'list' semantics. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, pagination, or auth requirements, but for a simple list operation the level of detail is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

While the description covers purpose and usage, it omits any explanation of the two parameters against a schema with zero descriptions. The agent will not know what 'query' and 'contains' should contain, nor what the returned data looks like (no output schema). Given the tool's simplicity, this makes the description incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'query' or 'contains' at all. The phrase 'a company' vaguely implies query selects the company, but there is no explicit explanation of what the parameter values should be or how 'contains' modifies the search. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 lists XBRL tags a company actually reports, with ordering by frequency. It distinguishes itself from get_concept by explicitly positioning this as the step to find the right tag before invoking get_concept. The verb 'list' and resource 'XBRL tags' are specific and unambiguous.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Use this to find the right tag before calling get_concept.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and how it relates to a sibling tool, making the intended workflow explicit. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear.

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