get_realized_gains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output structure (per year, gross/net, tax refunds), which is useful, but it doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, data lag, or other behavioral caveats. As a read-only 'get' operation, the behavior is implied, yet the description adds limited context beyond what the name suggests.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every clause adds value. It efficiently conveys the output scope and usage intent without unnecessary detail.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and the description adequately covers its functionality and return categories. It doesn't explain the exact response format, but no output schema is provided, and the description gives a good high-level view. It could mention the requirement of accountIds, but that's already in the schema. Overall, it's complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with the only parameter 'accountIds' described as 'Depot ID(s) to include.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema fully documents the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the burden.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Get realized gains per year' and details the breakdown into categories (trading, dividend, interest, other). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dividend_history or get_portfolio_performance, which focus on different financial metrics.

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 concrete use cases: 'what did I realize this year?' and 'tax questions.' This implies when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary criteria.

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