get_xbrl_frames

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are 'ranked by value' and that the default is the top 20 companies, which is modest behavioral context; it says nothing about rate limits, result volume ceiling, or coverage gaps. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 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?

Front-loaded opening sentence states the core operation, followed by cleanly labeled Args/Returns blocks. The Args list is dense but every line adds real information; the Returns line lightly duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only small 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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's remaining job is parameter meaning and it fulfills that well. What is missing is guidance on scope limits (e.g., how many companies qualify, server-side rate limits) for an openWorld tool, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 carry the full burden — and it does. All five parameters get meaning: concrete XBRL tag examples for concept, three distinct period formats ('CY2024', 'CY2024Q3', 'CY2024Q4I') with their semantics, enumerated unit values, enumerated taxonomy values, and the limit default. This compensates completely for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb ('Compare'), resource ('one financial concept'), and scope ('across ALL reporting companies for one period'). The explicit cross-company scope implicitly separates it from the single-company sibling get_company_concept, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'across ALL reporting companies for one period' — i.e., use for cross-company peer comparison rather than single-entity lookup. However, no alternative tool is named and there are no explicit when/when-not conditions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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