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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those fields: the data is fixed/sample rather than live, and records carry provenance metadata. It does not describe pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (equivalence to get_holdings) is placed last for emphasis rather than buried. Nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with four undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage routing against get_holdings, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are four parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only vaguely gestures at 'positions' (wallet, as_of_date) and says nothing about limit/offset semantics, date format, or wallet identifier format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('retrieve recorded sample positions') and front-loads the key distinguishing fact that it serves the same fixed data as get_holdings. That naming of a sibling gives an agent a way to tell the two apart, though it stops short of explaining why a distinct tool exists for identical data.

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 'same fixed data as get_holdings' implies the two are interchangeable and that this is the demo/sample variant, which is contextual. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or selection rule, leaving the agent to infer which of the two holdings tools to call.

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