avanza_position_strategy_audit

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only at Avanza and explains the fail-closed behavior for missing/stale reviewed plans, contradictory protection classifications, and REPAIR_REQUIRED rows. It does not detail error modes, rate limits, or session authorization behavior, but the core behavioral traits are well 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 with no filler. It front-loads the main action ('Refresh exact holdings...'), states the validation behavior, and closes with the read-only guarantee. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description gives strong behavioral context, especially the fail-closed criteria and read-only nature. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return value or result shape, and the session/account parameter semantics remain unresolved. For an audit tool with this complexity, a bit more about expected outputs and prerequisites would make it complete.

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 0%, and the description only says 'for one account', which clarifies account_id at a high level. It provides no additional meaning for session_id or tenant_session_id, their relationship, format, or why they are optional. Since the schema itself has no parameter descriptions, the agent is left without sufficient guidance for the non-account 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 names a specific action, resource, and scope: refresh holdings, stop exposure, open orders, and stop-intent metadata for one account. It also differentiates itself from the sibling avanza_stoploss_strategy_audit by covering the broader position strategy and protection classification. The fail-closed clause further clarifies that this is a validation/audit tool, not a generic data fetch.

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 implies the tool is appropriate when an account-level position strategy audit is needed, and it mentions 'for one account' as the scope. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over avanza_stoploss_strategy_audit, avanza_protection_gaps, or avanza_portfolio, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites such as an authorized session.

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