Fullt skatteoppgjør fra Nordnet-eksport

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: parsing CSV, grouping by ISIN, automatic routing to stock or fund engines, and return of aggregated tax settlement. It also states what it does not do (dividends). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no data modification) or detail error handling or performance characteristics.

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 a single paragraph of about 4 sentences, covering main action, routing logic, exclusions, and warnings. It front-loads the primary purpose. While effective and not verbose, it could be improved with bullet points or clearer structure for readability.

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 and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of input and processing but is vague on output structure ('ett samlet skatteoppgjør'). It omits the inngangs_carry_per_isin parameter entirely. The tool is complex with 4 parameters and automatic routing, so more detail on output and the carry parameter would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema for the main parameters: it explains that csv_filsti and csv_tekst are alternative input methods. The rapporteringsaar parameter is implied in 'rapporteringsåret' but its format, default, and range are not described. The inngangs_carry_per_isin parameter is not mentioned at all. Since schema coverage is high (all parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline is 3; the description adds value for the two key input options, earning a 4.

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 purpose: takes a Nordnet transaction export, parses, groups by ISIN, and routes to appropriate calculation engines (stocks FIFO, funds) to return a complete tax settlement for realized gains/losses. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that dividends are not calculated here and directing users to calculate_skjermingsfradrag.

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 explicit guidance on when and how to use the tool: it specifies the input format (CSV file path or inline raw CSV text), explains the automatic routing logic, and states exclusions (dividends) with a direct reference to the alternative tool. It also mentions that missing ISINs in fund classification are reported as actionable warnings.

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