import_xperformance_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency (re-import updates existing positions), that it returns import counts, warnings, and a preview, and it implies mutation via 'updates existing positions'. It doesn't cover permissions or error handling, but it covers key behavioral traits beyond the schema. This is a solid disclosure.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information: what it imports, what it extracts, and its idempotency/return behavior. Concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential details: what it does, what it extracts, idempotency, and return preview. It lacks explicit return format details (e.g., structure of counts/warnings), but the mention of preview up to 10 positions is sufficient. It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 only parameter file_path is fully described in the schema ('Absolute path to the XPerformance PDF'). The description adds the context that it's XP's official report, but that's redundant with the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Import') and a specific resource (XPerformance PDF, XP's official portfolio report). It distinguishes from sibling import tools like import_extract_csv and import_bank_extract_pdf by specifying the exact report type and the fields extracted. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for XP's official portfolio report, which implicitly tells the agent when to use it over other import tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions to avoid using it, so it lacks explicit exclusions. It's clear enough but not exhaustive.

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