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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds a useful domain constraint: losses must be tax-deductible in the current year. It does not, however, reveal anything about return format, replacement suggestions, or sorting behavior beyond what the input schema already covers.

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 a single terse sentence with no fluff, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified as a standalone definition and lacks structure or clarification, making it less useful than a well-organized purpose-and-usage statement.

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 and strong reliance on the tool name, the description is incomplete: it does not describe what an agent should expect in the response, what 'tax deductible' entails, or how this tool relates to its many siblings. The safe read-only annotation and detailed parameter schema partially compensate, but the overall context is thin.

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 baseline applies. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents maxResults cap/sorting, minLossPLN threshold, and sameSector replacement behavior, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 identifies the tool's output: positions with a loss that can be deducted from tax this year. This is a specific, meaningful purpose rather than a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling find_* tools like find_opportunities or find_dip_candidates.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as find_opportunities, find_dip_candidates, or get_top_opportunities. The tax-loss context is implied by the name and description, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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