flex_analyze_cash_utilization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses data sources (most recent equity-summary row, current open-positions snapshot), explains the worst-case reservation formula, and lists all return fields. It stops short of discussing edge cases (e.g., no short puts, negative cash) but otherwise is 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 lengthy but every section earns its place: formula, purpose, data sources, and a clear bulleted list of return fields. The formatting improves scannability and avoids redundant prose.

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 tool's complexity (multi-step calculation, multiple outputs), the description is nearly complete—it covers inputs loosely, the formula, data sources, and all return fields. It falls short only in not addressing error conditions or input format details, and there is no usage guidance vs siblings. Still, it provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly assuming the XML input is understood from context.

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 only parameter 'xml_content' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what XML content should be provided or its expected format. Given the low schema coverage, the description was required to compensate, and it fails to do so beyond the parameter name itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and names the exact resource (free cash as percentage of Net Liq after short-put reservations). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools (pnl, dividends, portfolio history) by focusing on cash utilization and short-put obligations.

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 clear context by stating the question it answers ('Of my total Net Liq, how much of my cash is actually free...'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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