get_xbrl_financial

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the conversion process (ZIP→XML→dict), suggesting the output is parsed. But it doesn't state whether the call is read-only, any rate limits, or error handling. The description adds moderate value beyond what the tool name implies.

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 concise sentences. The first explains the core function, and the second lists parameters with clear values. Every word is useful, no 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 no output schema, the description could mention the structure of the returned dictionary. However, the conversion note hints at the output format. The tool's purpose is clear, and the parameter details are complete. Minor gap in output specification.

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 fully compensates by explaining rcept_no as a 14-digit receipt number and reprt_code with explicit report period codes (e.g., '11013' for Q1). This adds essential meaning missing from 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 with a transformation pipeline (ZIP→XML→dict). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_single_company_account or get_audit_fee, which cover different report types.

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 parameter details for rcept_no and reprt_code, including the valid codes for quarterly/annual reports. However, it does not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_single_financial_index, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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