get_quarterly_tax_summary_tool

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('cannot place, modify, or cancel orders'), requires a specific environment variable, raises errors rather than silently failing, uses FIFO cost-basis, and does not account for wash sales, dividends, or corporate actions. It also clearly labels outputs as estimates, not final tax advice. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Although the description is relatively long, every sentence serves a purpose: the opening line summarizes functionality, the IMPORTANT section groups safety and limitation warnings, and the parameter note at the end is practical. The structured use of bullet points and bold headings makes it easy for an agent to parse. No filler is present.

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 complexity of a tax-related tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two flexible parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it computes, its data source, prerequisites, limitations, and parameter usage. It appropriately omits return-value details since no output schema exists, but the description still gives enough information for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains that `start` and `end` are 'YYYY-MM-DD' strings and warns about the ~90-day default lookback, with an explicit example for a full tax year. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, which only shows nullable string defaults. It even clarifies the consequence of omitting `start`, which is crucial for correct invocation.

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: 'Realized capital gain/loss by quarter (Q126 format), split into short-term and long-term, using FIFO cost-basis matching against your LIVE trading account's deal history.' This specifies the exact verb (get/realized), resource (capital gain/loss), and scope (LIVE trading account, FIFO). It differentiates from siblings like `get_quarterly_transaction_summary_tool` by focusing on tax-specific figures rather than generic transactions.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for planning estimates only and warns against treating it as final tax figures, recommending reconciliation with the broker's 1099-B. It also explains prerequisites (TAX_AUDIT_ENABLE_LIVE=true) and gives concrete advice on date handling (pass an explicit start for a full tax year). These guidelines help the agent decide when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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