avanza_frozen_holdings_attribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation is read-only and that it fails closed on missing history or unsupported cash events, which is valuable safety-relevant context. It does not elaborate on other behaviors such as output format or authentication requirements, but the key safety and failure semantics are disclosed.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds safety and failure behavior. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema fields.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly. It would need more detail about how parameters affect behavior, what the return value looks like, and what conditions make it appropriate to call.

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 33%, and the description does not explain the meaning of start_date, period, account_id, include_daily, or how they map to the reconstruction logic. The description's mention of prices, transactions, and cash events gives some context but does not compensate for the largely undocumented parameters.

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 ('Reconstruct'), a clear resource ('an account's frozen starting-holdings path'), and the inputs used (daily prices, transactions, cash events). It is distinct from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related attribution or portfolio tools such as avanza_account_cost_attribution.

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 versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like requiring an active session or selected account, and no exclusion criteria. The description implies its use case but leaves the when-to-use decision entirely to the agent.

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