ib_collar

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states it generates a report and analyzes positions, and mentions the local TWS/IB Gateway requirement. However, it does not explicitly state whether it places orders or is strictly read-only, nor does it describe side effects or data confidentiality, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear purpose sentence, a one-line method explanation, a prerequisite sentence, and a tidy parameter list. No redundant fluff; every line carries useful information.

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 purpose, method, prerequisites, and parameters adequately. However, it does not describe the output format or what the report contains beyond 'recommends put protection', and it omits whether the tool executes trades. Given there is no output schema, more detail on return value or side effects would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: symbol (with example AAPL), port (with live/paper port numbers), and account (with optional designation). This adds practical meaning beyond bare schema titles.

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 begins with 'Generate tactical collar strategy report for protecting PMCC positions', which is a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('collar strategy report') with clear context. It further explains it 'Analyzes existing long call (PMCC) positions and recommends put protection', distinguishing it from other option strategies and related tools like ib_pmcc_advisor.

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 states when to use the tool ('through earnings or high-risk events') and prerequisites ('Requires TWS or IB Gateway running locally'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for basic selection among siblings.

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