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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and succeeds: it lists every returned field (hold strength 0-100, maturity-late flag, gap-risk grade, watch_flags and their exact deterioration conditions), states it returns published state only, clarifies it is impersonal and never reads entry/size/account, and discloses the free-tier delay. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a read-only tool.

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?

Every sentence earns its place — the punchy opener ('THE SELL-SIDE READ') front-loads the purpose, followed by return fields, watch_flag conditions, crypto special case, formatting, and the live sibling. It is a dense single paragraph rather than structured bullets, so it sacrifices scannability, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by detailing every returned field and the watch_flag conditions, covers symbol formatting, the crypto exception, the free-tier delay, and the live alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is left unclear.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by specifying the comma-separated format, the up-to-10-symbol limit with an example (NVDA,AMD,BTC-USD), and the special crypto IN|CASH behavior. That lifts it above baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), resource (hold state), and a precise purpose: the sell-side read of whether the case for a name you already hold is intact or deteriorating. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the live counterpart get_hold_state_live and enumerating the exact fields returned. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 phrase 'for a name you already hold' clearly signals this is for existing positions, and it differentiates the free tier (one market day delayed) from the live sibling get_hold_state_live. It also notes the crypto special case for BTC-USD/ETH-USD. It lacks explicit 'use X instead when...' exclusions against get_stock_read or get_crypto_trend, but the held-name framing and live-sibling reference give solid usage context.

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