Lightyear Portfolio Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Compute' aligns. It adds context by specifying the input (account statement) and output (holdings and cost basis), but could further clarify no side effects beyond reading.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Compute'. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy.

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 adequately covers purpose and input but lacks details on output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, more clarity on what the output contains (e.g., list of holdings, totals) would improve completeness.

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 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the file_path must be an absolute path to a CSV file of an AccountStatement, which is more informative than the schema alone.

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 verb 'Compute' and the resource 'current holdings and cost basis' from a Lightyear account statement. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'parse_lightyear_statement' by focusing on a summary computation rather than raw parsing.

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 provides a use case ('useful for verifying investment account balance') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The user is left to infer that other tools might handle detailed transaction parsing.

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