avanza_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Show' makes the read-only nature evident, which is the key behavioral trait for a status tool. However, it does not disclose whether an active session/authorization is required, whether the call reflects live state, or any side effects or limitations, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb comes first and each listed item ('bridge status,' 'selected account,' 'safety mode') earns its place by enumerating a distinct output category. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 simple tool with 0 required parameters and no nested objects, the description adequately names the three output areas, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, it does not clarify the response shape, explain how the two optional session parameters affect the result, or disambiguate from similarly named siblings like data_source_status and avanza_sessions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters, including session_id being a legacy alias for tenant_session_id (non-paper tools only). The tool description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable per the baseline-3 rule since the schema carries the full explanatory weight.

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 ('Show') with three concrete resources: TUI MCP bridge status, selected account, and current safety mode. These elements are distinctive enough to implicitly separate it from siblings like avanza_sessions, avanza_accounts, and data_source_status, but it never explicitly names an alternative or states what it is not, so differentiation remains implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'Show' verb tells an agent to call this when it needs bridge status, selected account, or safety mode information. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over similar siblings (data_source_status, avanza_sessions, avanza_live_snapshot), no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites or conditions.

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