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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: it never raises a protocol error and instead returns an error object with remediation guidance. It also discloses the legal significance of the output (heads-up, not an adjustment) and explicitly states retrying is safe after correcting input.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact example, legal context, usage guidance, and error behavior. Every sentence contributes something necessary; the example JSON and error format earn their place, and the length is justified by the nuance of the feature.

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 description covers purpose, input expectations, output shape, error semantics, legal caveats, and safety of retry. Since an output schema exists, the return format is already structured, and the description fills the contextual gaps around when and why to use the tool, making it fully complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing typical input and output examples, clarifying that disposals come from build_lots, and explaining the 30-day default via the IRC 1091 context. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Flag loss disposals with a repurchase of the same asset inside the window.' This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as build_lots or form_8949_rows, and the example reinforces what the tool computes.

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 explicitly states 'Use when reviewing loss harvesting' and warns 'Not a determination that any rule applies.' It provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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