avanza_instrument_stoplosses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', giving no detail on auth/session requirements, potential refresh/caching side effects, filter semantics, or what the returned rows contain. The presence of a 'refresh' parameter suggests a non-trivial behavior that is completely unexplained.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, resource, scope, and filters efficiently. While more detail would be useful elsewhere, the structure itself is ideal.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return shape, filter behavior, authentication/session expectations, or the effects of refresh and compact. It is minimally usable but leaves many important gaps for the agent to guess.

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 20%, and the description does not compensate. It identifies 'side/status filters' but does not explain allowed status values, the duplicate side enum casing, the meaning of compact/refresh, or the relationship between orderbook_id, order_book_id, and instrument_name.

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 action ('Read'), a specific resource ('stop-loss rows'), and a clear scope ('one instrument/account') with optional filters. It is distinguishable from broader sibling tools like avanza_stoplosses, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 clear context: this is for reading stop-loss rows scoped to a specific instrument/account, which implies it should be used when targeted data is needed rather than a portfolio-wide view. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scoping is strong enough to guide selection.

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