avanza_recent_fills_needing_protection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal an important behavioral trait: BUY fills are not automatically assumed to need full-holding SELL stops, and missing coverage is only reported against explicit targets. It does not, however, state whether the operation is read-only, describe the output shape, or mention session/auth prerequisites.

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 primary action and key behavioral caveat are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the reporting condition is placed in the second. Every phrase 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?

For a tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description captures the core invocation policy but leaves gaps: output format, time-window semantics for 'since', account/session requirements, and routing against sibling protection tools are not addressed. It is minimally viable but not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 57%, leaving 'since', 'account_id', and 'exclude_eth' undocumented. The description reinforces the meaning of the two target-related parameters by tying missing-COVERAGE reporting to an explicit percentage or strategy-classified target, but it adds no meaning for the 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 action ('Review recent BUY fills') and a specific scope, then adds the distinguishing policy: it does not assume full-holding SELL stops and reports missing coverage only against explicit targets. This differentiates it from generic protection-gap or audit siblings even without naming them.

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 wording implies when the tool is appropriate: it should be used when the caller has an explicit percentage or strategy-classified coverage target, and not as a default full-coverage audit. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage direction remains implicit.

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