capital_gains_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently explains the tool accepts inline transactions or a CSV path, applies superficial losses, and produces a detailed report. It also includes a disclaimer that it is not tax advice. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or permissions.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering what the tool does, input options, output details, and a cautionary note, without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description explains the output (dispositions with proceeds, ACB, etc., plus totals) despite no output schema. It covers the key input parameters and limitations. However, it lacks discussion of error scenarios or edge cases, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no external schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well. It explains the tax_year parameter, the choice between csv_path and transactions, and provides a detailed breakdown of the transaction object format (date, action, security, shares, price, optional fields). This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 produces a capital-gains report for a single tax year (Schedule 3 style), listing dispositions with proceeds, ACB, outlays, and totals. It distinguishes from sibling tools (acb_summary, calculate_acb, check_superficial_losses) by focusing on a comprehensive report rather than just ACB or loss calculations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or alternatives. It only mentions it is a calculation aid and advises verifying results, but lacks context for selection criteria.

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