schedule3_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: applies the superficial-loss rule, provides per-column totals, and includes a caution that it's a calculation aid. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or describe error handling, but the specifics given are substantial.

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 and information-dense without fluff. Each sentence adds value: output shape, aggregation details, sibling distinction, input options, transaction schema, and a disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates.

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's complexity, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves (superficial-loss rule), what inputs are accepted, what outputs look like (columns and totals), and includes a necessary legal caution. No critical aspect is missing.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions, but the description compensates fully. It explains tax_year as an optional filter, csv_path versus transactions as alternative inputs, and details the transaction object structure with all fields and examples (e.g., fx_rate 1.35 for USD).

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's purpose: it aggregates dispositions into one line per security for Schedule 3. It uses a specific verb ('aggregates') and identifies the resource ('dispositions'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling capital_gains_report.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'capital_gains_report lists every individual disposition; use this tool when the user wants the aggregated filing lines instead.' It also explains that it accepts inline transactions or a csv_path, giving clear input options.

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