get_xbrl

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

With no annotations, the description minimally discloses behavior: it describes output formats and sizes but omits any effects on the system, authorization needs, or side effects. It does not state that the operation is read-only.

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: one sentence with a clear break into format options. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes key details efficiently.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers format choices, sizes, and applicability of parameters. It lacks error handling or prerequisite info but is otherwise adequate.

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%, and the description echoes parameter details with slight additions (e.g., automatic industry response for markdown_full). It adds marginal value 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves XBRL financial statements and explains three format options with specific characteristics. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_financials or get_periodic_report.

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 explains when to use each format (raw, markdown, markdown_full) based on output type and size, but does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites.

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