journal_attribution

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. It only describes the conceptual action without addressing safety or data scope.

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 a single efficient sentence with the primary verb front-loaded and no wasted words. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification, meriting a modest deduction.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks critical context about usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral expectations. For a tool with minimal parameters and no annotations, this description is too sparse to be considered minimally complete.

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% and the description never mentions the sole parameter 'account'. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not clarify expected values, format, or how the account relates to the attribution, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 provides a specific verb ('attribute') and resource ('net realized results and commissions by symbol'), making the purpose fairly clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like pnl or summary, so it slightly falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues beyond the basic operation, leaving the agent uninformed about selection criteria.

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