Parse Lightyear Capital Gains

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds specific context: the file type (CSV), method (FIFO), and what information is shown (cost basis, proceeds, realized gains per sale). No contradictions. Adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Description is a single sentence, clear and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. Could be slightly improved by adding bullet points for output fields, but current structure is adequate.

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 simple parsing tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers the purpose, input, and output. It doesn't explain error handling or file format specifics, but given the tool's limited scope, it provides sufficient 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?

Only one parameter 'file_path' with a schema description that already explains what it needs. Description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool parses a Lightyear Capital Gains Statement CSV using FIFO method and lists output fields (cost basis, proceeds, realized gains). It clearly distinguishes from sibling parse_lightyear_statement, which likely handles a different statement type.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites, when not to use, or comparing to related tools like book_lightyear_trades or parse_lightyear_statement.

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