get_fund_asset_holding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains the return type (DataFrame) and output format options, including 'toon' for AI optimization. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or data freshness, which is acceptable for a read operation but not comprehensive.

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 concise, using a structured docstring-like format that is easy to parse. It avoids unnecessary details and presents essential information efficiently.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is adequate but lacks some context, such as clarifying that 'asset holding' refers to full portfolio composition rather than top holdings. Additional detail could improve completeness.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'symbol' as the fund symbol and 'output_format' options with a default and purpose. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is significant, though 'toon' could be defined more clearly.

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 it retrieves asset holdings of a fund, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_fund_top_holding or get_fund_industry_holding, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the function without contextual usage advice.

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