check_superficial_losses

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

Fully discloses the tool's behavior: scans dispositions, identifies losses under the 30-day rule, and reports security, date, denied amount, and allowable portion. Also explains that denied amount is added to ACB of substitute shares. No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so excellently.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence. Structured logically: rule explanation, output description, then input format. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides everything needed: input format, behavior logic, and output fields. The complexity of the CRA superficial loss rule is well-explained, making the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: csv_path for file input and transactions for inline data. It also defines the transaction object structure in detail (date, action, security, shares, price, optional fields), adding significant meaning beyond parameter names.

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?

Clearly states it flags superficial losses under the CRA 30-day rule. Uses specific verb 'Flag' and resource 'superficial losses'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like acb_summary and calculate_acb, which handle general ACB or capital gains, not superficial loss detection.

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?

Describes what the tool does in detail, including the rule it applies and the input formats. Provides clear context but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. However, the purpose is distinct from siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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