financial_xbrl_taxonomy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response structure). Given annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary information, achieving high conciseness. It could be slightly more informative while remaining concise, hence not a 5.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and a simple parameter set, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about what the taxonomy contains and how it relates to other financial tools, making it less useful for informed tool selection.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description for the single parameter sj_div, listing allowed values. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what is already in 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 'XBRL taxonomeul johoehamnida' (Query XBRL taxonomy) clearly states the verb 'query' and resource 'XBRL taxonomy', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like financial_xbrl_download, which might cause ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. With many sibling tools, this lack of guidance increases the chance of incorrect selection.

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