avanza_recovery_reachability

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

With no annotations, the description itself discloses the key behavioral traits: read-only, fail-closed, flagging rather than recommending, and not treating thresholds as placement advice. It doesn't cover failure modes or session/auth requirements, but the core side-effect and safety profile is unusually explicit.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the safety profile and audit nature, then list the flagged conditions and end with the placement-advice caveat. Every clause contributes meaning and there is no filler.

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 definition is adequate for an expert: it gives purpose, side-effect profile, and criteria. However, with no output schema and most parameters undocumented, an agent is left to infer the exact return shape, how account/session scoping works, and what fail-closed means operationally.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It frames the numeric thresholds as audit-only limits and references the review-distance limit and reversal gliders, but it never explicitly maps those concepts to the parameter names, nor does it explain account_id's role.

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 verb and resource: a read-only audit of active BUY reachability, and then enumerates the exact conditions it flags. This distinguishes it clearly from order-execution and general status tools in the sibling list.

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?

It establishes clear usage context as a fail-closed, read-only audit and explicitly warns that thresholds are not placement advice, which is a useful when-not boundary. It does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer this audit over related audit siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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