Get HSA investments

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the fragile nature ('trying known GET paths', 'First 2xx wins', 'paths may 404'). This is valuable context about failure modes and the operational approach, which the annotation does not cover.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the fragility caveat immediately after. No fluff; every clause earns 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?

With an output schema present and full schema parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential operational behavior (reverse-engineered, possible 404s). It doesn't mention error handling beyond the 404 hint, but that's acceptable given the fragility warning.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's already in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read HSA investment data') and distinguishes it by describing the reverse-engineered approach. The tool's purpose is clear and unambiguous, differentiating it from siblings like list_transactions or get_hsa_account_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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description implies it's for investment data, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or point to specific siblings. The reverse-engineered caveat hints at fragility but doesn't route the agent to a more reliable alternative.

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