get_tax_lots_csv

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

The description discloses that the return is a file object with fileName and base64Data, that the CSV is Base64-encoded, and that the API key must have trading.read scope. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations and does not contradict 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 tight and front-loaded: purpose, return format, encoding, auth requirement, and parameter fallback are each covered in a few clear sentences with no filler. It earn 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?

For a one-parameter export tool, the description fully covers purpose, output shape, encoding, auth, and optional parameter resolution. The output schema exists, but the return-format detail is still beneficial and does not leave gaps.

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 has one parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's Args section compensates by noting account_id is optional and falls back to PUBLIC_COM_ACCOUNT_ID when set, adding operational meaning beyond the schema's default:null.

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 begins with 'Export the unrealized tax lots as a CSV file', using a specific verb and resource. The 'CSV' format clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tax_lots and get_tax_lots_for_symbol.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to export unrealized tax lots as a CSV file. It also states the required trading.read scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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