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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the sequencing dependency on unlock_shareflo and the fact that results carry holding status. No pagination or volume behavior is mentioned, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the primary behavior and its two modes front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-value burden; it mentions holding status but not the broader shape of a holding record. Prerequisite, scope, and parameter behavior are all covered, so only return-format detail is missing.

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% so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by explaining the semantic effect of omitting the optional stakeholder parameter (returns every stakeholder's holdings). That is real added meaning, though it adds no format or matching-syntax detail.

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 (returns) and resource (holdings) with two clearly delineated modes: filtered by stakeholder or all stakeholders. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stakeholders and get_instruments at a glance.

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 states the condition for each mode (specify stakeholder to filter, omit to get all) and gives a hard prerequisite: unlock_shareflo must have been called first. It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the usage condition is unambiguous.

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