get_tax_lots

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return contents (per-lot unrealized gain/loss, holding term, cost basis, aggregate totals) and the authentication requirement (API key must have 'trading.read' scope). This goes beyond what annotations provide, without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, the second details the return contents, and the Args section efficiently covers the one parameter. There is no superfluous text; every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simple one-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns, the auth requirement, and parameter optionality. It doesn't need to explain return values in depth because an output schema exists, but it could have benefited from a brief note on when to choose this over the symbol-specific or CSV variants. Still, it is largely complete for its complexity.

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?

The schema provides only a default null and anyOf type for account_id, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that account_id is 'Optional if PUBLIC_COM_ACCOUNT_ID is set,' thereby providing essential context about when it can be omitted and how the environment variable factor works. This is complete and clear for the sole 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource: 'unrealized tax-lot summary for the account.' It further details what the summary includes (per-lot gains/losses, holding term, cost basis, aggregate totals), making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like get_tax_lots_for_symbol and get_tax_lots_csv.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description does not mention the sibling get_tax_lots_for_symbol for symbol-specific queries or get_tax_lots_csv for CSV export, nor does it provide context about typical use cases. It only mentions the required scope, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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