avanza_account_cost_attribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is read-only and fails closed on truncated history, which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not cover other behaviors such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or output format.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the safety note is placed immediately after, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling toolset, the description is too sparse. It gives the tool's essence but not enough detail about parameters, return value, or how it relates to other account-level Avanza tools.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It loosely maps 'one account' to account_id and 'modeled FX removed' to fx_fee_rate, but leaves period, start_date, include_daily, top_cost_days, and session parameters effectively unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Replay') and resource ('one account's Avanza cash-flow-adjusted return') with concrete modifications ('posted commission and modeled FX removed'). It is clear about the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling attribution/performance tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like avanza_account_performance or avanza_frozen_holdings_attribution. The fail-closed note hints at a constraint, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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