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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it details the OBBBA tiered schedule for post-July-4-2025 stock versus the all-or-nothing 5-year rule for earlier stock, the caps, the exclusion of funds/SPVs, the currency of amounts, and the explicit caveat that it cannot confirm issuer qualification and is not tax advice.

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-loaded with purpose, exclusions, and the scoping instruction before the dense tax-schedule detail. The OBBBA tier breakdown is long but substantive rather than padding; a small amount of the statutory detail could be trimmed without loss.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so: one lot per acquisition, the exclusion earned today, the dates remaining tiers land, and the currency field. Limitations (recorded dates only, non-advice, funds/SPVs excluded) close the remaining gaps.

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 page, per_page and company are already documented. The description restates the company filter ('Pass a company slug to scope to one company') without adding syntax or edge-case behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — QSBS holding-period clocks across the authenticated user's portfolio — with scope ('one lot per QSBS-flagged acquisition') and ordering ('soonest deadline first'). No sibling tool covers QSBS lots, so the agent can select this without ambiguity.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('which positions can be sold without giving up the exclusion') and a scoping instruction for the company param. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, but the sibling set contains no overlapping tool, so the guidance is nearly complete.

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