acb_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains input formats (transactions or csv_path) and output (holdings, shares, ACB). However, it does not disclose what happens with empty inputs, error behavior, or the exact output structure beyond general fields.

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 with two paragraphs: first states purpose, second gives parameter details. It is informative without being verbose. Minor improvement could be front-loading the comparison earlier, but overall concise.

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 output schema, the description covers inputs thoroughly and explains what the output shows (holdings, shares, ACB). It lacks mention of error handling or edge cases, but is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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% (parameters anyOf without description), but the description fully details both parameters: 'transactions' as an array of objects with required and optional fields (date, action, security, shares, price, etc.) and 'csv_path' as a path. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 shows current holdings (shares, total ACB, ACB per share) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'calculate_acb' by noting it's a lighter view for current book cost. Purpose is specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when you only want the current book cost of what is still held' and contrasts it with 'calculate_acb'. It does not exclude other siblings but provides a clear context for usage.

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