get_esg_xbrl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states what data is returned, omitting behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or handling of missing data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, more transparency is needed.

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 sentence specifies the main function, and the second lists returned data and usage context. No redundant words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the categories of returned data (emissions, diversity, safety, compliance). It is sufficient for a 2-parameter tool, though a brief note on error conditions or example would improve completeness.

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% with both parameters (ticker and year) already described. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 NZ Climate Standards (NZ CS 1-3) tagged ESG/climate disclosure for NZX companies. It lists specific data types: emissions, diversity, safety, framework compliance. Distinguishes from siblings like get_financials_xbrl, which focus on financial data.

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 includes 'Use when the user wants ESG data...' providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, though the sibling list includes potentially related tools.

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