get_capital_gains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the resource is capital-gains distribution history, which is modest beyond-annotation value; no auth, rate-limit, or scope caveats are provided.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first line and Args/Returns clearly separated. The returns line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but overall it wastes little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the behavioral profile. For a single-parameter read tool the description is adequate, with the only real gap being the lack of explicit routing versus get_dividends.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema's single field carries only a title, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning ('Ticker symbol (typically ETF or mutual fund)'), narrowing the expected input type, but gives no format example or validation constraints.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get capital gains distributions') and scopes it with '(primarily for funds/ETFs)', which implicitly separates it from the nearby get_dividends. It does not, however, explicitly name that sibling as the alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 parenthetical '(primarily for funds/ETFs)' gives implied context for when this applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives (e.g., get_dividends for ordinary dividends). Usage is left to inference.

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