Beregn aksjegevinst/-tap (FIFO)

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: FIFO method, stock adjustment, implicit tax (22%), per-sale breakdown, aggregated totals, and remaining lots. No destructive behavior is mentioned, but for a calculation tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes essential details without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 has two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool calculates and what outputs are produced (per-sale breakdown, totals, remaining lots). No gaps identified.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'multi-ticker støttes' is already in schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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 it calculates realized stock gains/losses per ticker using FIFO. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., calculate_boliggevinst, calculate_kryptogevinst) by specifying it's for stocks and mentioning multi-ticker and tax details.

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 implies usage for stock gain calculation with FIFO but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tool names give context, but no direct guidance.

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