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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not responsible for those. It adds valuable context about quote freshness ('never assume they are live') and the per-currency grouping, which are not in the annotations. This exceeds the minimum bar set by annotations.

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?

Two short, focused sentences. The primary purpose and key data caveat are front-loaded, with no filler. Every sentence adds value and is directly relevant to invocation.

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 output data shape and the quote staleness warning, but it omits any explanation of the include_archived parameter. Since an output schema exists, return format need not be detailed, but parameter semantics are a notable gap. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but not fully 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?

The schema has one parameter, include_archived, with no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and default behavior. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain the parameter or its effect.

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 lists investment holdings with specific fields (quantity, cost basis, last cached quote, unrealised P/L) and groups them by currency. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools like list_accounts or list_categories.

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 usage through the resource name but does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternative tools (e.g., import_holdings, update_holding). No exclusions or alternatives are stated, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling set.

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