get_tax_lots_for_symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it states the required API scope, explains that price is optional and defaults to current market price, and describes what fields are returned. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a return-detail line, a scope requirement, then a concise Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 an output schema exists, return values are already partially documented. The description adds sufficient context: what lots are returned (gain/loss, term, cost basis), scope requirement, and parameter behavior. It is complete for a read-only single-symbol lookup tool.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates with an Args section. It explains symbol with an example, price as an optional numeric string with omission behavior, and account_id as optional if a default is set. This goes well beyond the basic schema types.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the unrealized tax-lot detail for a single symbol.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tax_lots (all lots) and get_tax_lots_csv (export) by emphasizing the single-symbol scope.

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?

Provides clear context: it returns open lots with cost basis, can accept an optional price, and requires trading.read scope. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the single-symbol restriction is implied. Lacks explicit exclusion guidance for a 5.

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