avanza_stoploss_strategy_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'Read-only at Avanza', which clarifies there is no mutation of broker-side state. However, the term 'Refresh' leaves ambiguity about local side effects, and there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with mismatches.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The core action and audit purpose are front-loaded, with the read-only caveat appended efficiently. Every word 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify return values and usage context. It states the audit goal but does not explicitly say what the tool returns (e.g., mismatched rows or a status report), nor does it clarify how it relates to sibling audit tools. Still, the core invocation conditions are clear enough for a basic call.

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%; session_id and tenant_session_id are documented in the schema, but account_id and compact are not. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the 'compact' boolean's effect on output is entirely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Refresh active broker stop-losses' and 'audit whether every exact row has matching durable local strategy metadata.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like avanza_stoplosses (which likely just lists stop-losses) and avanza_stoploss_strategy_register_batch (which registers metadata).

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 usage context is implied: it is for verifying consistency between live broker stop-losses and local strategy metadata. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus similar audit tools such as avanza_position_strategy_audit, nor any exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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