download_xbrl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the action (download) and the return value (result message with file path and list of files), but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and well-structured with separate sections for parameters and returns. Every sentence is useful, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some parameter descriptions.

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 tool complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains parameters and return values. It lacks prerequisites or usage context, but overall provides sufficient completeness for a typical download tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: corp_code is 8 characters, bsns_year is a year (example 2024), reprt_code maps codes to reporting periods, and output_dir defaults to current directory. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 'XBRL 재무제표 원본파일을 다운로드합니다' (download XBRL financial statement original file), with a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like download_document and get_xbrl_taxonomy, it distinguishes itself as a tool for downloading original XBRL files.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, and no sibling differentiation or prerequisites are mentioned.

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