avanza_verify_protection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the fallback behavior and the boundary of not inferring a full-holding exit. However, it does not state whether the check is read-only, what output is produced, or any session/auth requirements, leaving major behavioral gaps.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is stated economically. Every clause adds 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 10 parameters, the description is too thin for reliable invocation. It conveys high-level verification semantics but omits return shape, parameter dependencies, how coverage_target_percent interacts with coverage_targets, and required session/account context. It supports tool selection but not confident invocation.

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. It adds meaning to the core concepts of 'exact strategy SELL targets' and 'without inferring a full-holding exit', but it does not map these to specific parameters or explain significant ones like account_id, orderbook_ids, exclude_orderbook_ids, exclude_eth, or exclude_non_stop_eligible. The fallback behavior is also not tied to any parameter.

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 ('post-mutation check') and resource ('exact strategy SELL targets'), then elaborates with fallback behavior ('failed SELL rows and overcoverage'). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly not inferring a full-holding exit. It does not name a sibling tool, so full differentiation is slightly incomplete, but the purpose is clear.

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 description implies usage after a mutation and explains the fallback when explicit targets are absent. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as avanza_protection_gaps or avanza_verify_no_raw_failed_orders, and it lacks exclusions or alternative routing.

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