bed_and_isa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool's advisory nature ('suggestions') and constraints (CGT allowance), but it does not clarify whether it executes trades or only calculates, nor does it mention authorization or destructive behavior. The description is partially transparent.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded with key information and earns its place.

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 covers the essential purpose but lacks details on output format, constraints (e.g., maximum recommendations), and behavioral nuances. With no output schema and moderate complexity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters ('holdings', 'isaUsedThisYear', 'cgtRealisedThisYear'). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaning, e.g., clarifying format of 'holdings' array or units of numbers.

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: 'CGT-aware Bed & ISA suggestions — moves GIA/taxable holdings into unused ISA allowance while staying within CGT allowance.' It identifies the specific verb ('suggestions'), resource ('Bed & ISA'), and scope (within CGT allowance), distinguishing it from sibling tools like iht_estimate or total_tax.

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 implies when to use (when optimizing GIA holdings for ISA and CGT allowances) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, it provides enough context through the phrase 'moves GIA/taxable holdings into unused ISA allowance' to guide selection.

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