log_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real trait beyond the schema: sell trades return realized gain/loss with cost basis. However, it says nothing about persistence, whether logging is idempotent, permission/auth needs, or what a buy trade returns, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one notable behavioral distinction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary action and one return behavior but omits guidance on the cost-basis/accounting-method options and state tax parameter. It is adequate but leaves the agent to rely entirely on the schema for the more specialized parameters.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., when to supply specific_lot_id vs accounting_method), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 (log) and resource (buy/sell trade) plus the domain purpose (capital gains tracking), which is concrete enough for an agent to act on. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like track_payment or calculate_tax, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for capital gains tracking' implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no sibling alternative named (e.g., track_payment for non-asset transactions). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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