avanza_protection_gaps

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose an important trait: it preserves current active SELL volume as the baseline and does not infer full-holding protection for core positions. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what happens when optional overrides are supplied, or what the audit output contains.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the default-baseline caveat is placed immediately after it, where it has the most value for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 8 parameters, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not describe the audit result shape, the effect of coverage_target_percent versus the default baseline, or any failure/safety behavior, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior from the definition alone.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented fields. It loosely ties 'strategy-classified SELL targets' to coverage_targets, but it says nothing about account_id, exclude_eth, exclude_orderbook_ids, or exclude_non_stop_eligible, leaving meaningful parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and names three concrete audit targets: strategy-classified SELL targets, failed SELL stops, and overcoverage. It also clarifies a distinguishing default behavior, making the tool easy to tell apart from sibling audit 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as avanza_stoploss_strategy_audit, avanza_verify_protection, or avanza_recent_fills_needing_protection. The default-behavior note explains how it operates, not when an agent should select it over alternatives.

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