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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds the required api:portfolio scope, explains connected/connections semantics, defines disabled and canTrade fields, and warns that order placement is out of scope. This is rich context beyond structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and packs useful routing and field semantics into a compact block. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical asides, but almost every clause earns its place by clarifying behavior or alternatives.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the returned shape: connected, connections, id, brokerageName, brokerageSlug, disabled, brokerCanTrade, and canTrade. It also supplies the relevant cross-tool routing and permission context, so an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions to enhance. The description appropriately focuses on return-value semantics instead. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — listing the user's linked brokerages via SnapTrade — and distinguishes itself from related tools like get_holdings, start_brokerage_connect, and unlink_brokerage. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: holdings/cash go to get_holdings, new links to start_brokerage_connect, and unlinking uses the returned id. It also clarifies that stock orders must go through propose_stock_order and confirm_stock_order, not this tool.

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