XBRL concept history

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds non-trivial behavior beyond them: results are 'newest first, deduped by period,' and framed_only filters to one-fact-per-calendar-period values for the cleanest time series. It stops short of covering pagination or the source API's quirks, so not quite a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by routing and the framed_only behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses ordering and dedup behavior for the returned series. For a 7-parameter tool it leaves pagination (limit) and unit-default behavior to the schema, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 57% (tag, unit, forms, company documented; limit/taxonomy/framed_only not). The description compensates for the most opaque parameter (framed_only) by explaining its semantics and value, and supplies example tags. limit and taxonomy remain unexplained in both places, keeping this below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving all reported values of one XBRL concept for one company. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_financials ('Use for any tag not in get_financials') and gives concrete tag examples, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('for any tag not in get_financials') and gives the condition that selects this tool. It also explains when to set framed_only, providing a clear usage rule rather than leaving intent to inference.

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