discover_xbrl_concepts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions discovering concepts and returning sample values, but it fails to disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid identifier), rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The tip suggests exploration, but no side effects or constraints are stated.

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, with a clear main action followed by a tip and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value, though the redundancy between the first sentence and the tip could be merged.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for typical use: exploration before extraction. However, it lacks details on output structure, pagination, or how to interpret the returned concepts and namespaces.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section must compensate. It lists the four parameters with their names and optionality, but adds little beyond that (e.g., no format or example values). The default values for accession_number and form_type are noted in the schema but not in the description.

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 'Discover all XBRL concepts available in a filing' with a specific verb and resource. The tip 'Use this to explore available data before extracting specific concepts' hints at a distinct use case but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_xbrl_concepts.

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 tip provides some guidance on when to use the tool ('explore available data before extracting specific concepts'), but it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives. The description implies a sequential workflow but lacks explicit usage conditions.

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