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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it states that the tool is free, explains the IRC 1091 window rationale, warns that the statute was not extended to non-security digital assets, and discloses that invalid input returns an error object rather than a protocol error. It also confirms read-only/idempotent retry safety, which reinforces rather than contradicts the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then gives a compact example, legal context, usage note, error behavior, and retry safety. The content is dense but every section adds decision-relevant information for an agent.

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?

Complete for this tool: annotations cover safety, the schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. The description additionally supplies legal caveats, error behavior, input provenance, and retry guidance, leaving no major gap 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by showing a typical input shape, linking disposals to build_lots rows, and illustrating the output flags, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: flags loss disposals with same-asset repurchases inside a window. The scope and relation to build_lots are clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as match_transfers or reconcile_1099da.

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?

Says to use it when reviewing loss harvesting and clarifies that the output is a planning heads-up, not a legal determination or adjustment. It gives clear context but does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the legal caveat.

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