avanza_sold_today_buyback_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful rules: same-day BUY fills offset sold volume, active BUY stops require durable sold-slice recovery attribution, and regular BUY orders are unattributed exposure. Concrete behavioral detail is present, though failure/error behavior and output shape remain undisclosed.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and rule elaboration in the second. It earns its sentences but uses dense, jargon-heavy phrasing that could be clearer for an automated agent.

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 no output schema, no annotations, five parameters, and 60% of parameters undocumented, the description leaves important context missing: what the summary returns, what tight_trigger_percent_max controls, and how date/account/session scoping is intended to work.

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 40%, so the description needed to compensate for date, account_id, and tight_trigger_percent_max. It does not explain any of these parameters or their formats, and only loosely implies date/account through 'same-day' and 'sold instruments' without connecting them to the schema.

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 operation ('Summarize same-day sold instruments') and explains the tool's distinguishing angle: same-day BUY fills offset sold volume and BUY stops only count under specific attribution. It stops short of a 5 because 'fail closed on economic recovery coverage' is jargon and no sibling tool is explicitly contrasted.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need a summary of same-day sold instruments and buyback coverage. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the many overlapping sibling tools such as avanza_recovery_reachability or avanza_protection_gaps, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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