asa_search_holdings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is paginated and performed via Indexer, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it describe response structure or potential errors. The 'List' verb implies a read operation, but more context would be helpful.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the core action (list), resource (holdings), scope (account), method (Indexer), and key option (assetId filter). Every word contributes, with zero waste.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or how to use pagination tokens (nextToken), which are important for consumption. It provides the essential context but leaves the agent to infer details about the response structure and pagination flow, making it minimally complete.

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 80% (4 of 5 params have descriptions), matching the high coverage baseline of 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'Optional assetId filter' but the schema already explains this. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ASA holdings for an account'), clearly conveying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like asa_get_holding by emphasizing the list/search nature, and it adds method context ('via Indexer') and pagination.

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 implies usage (list holdings, optionally filter by assetId) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like asa_get_holding. It lacks direct 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is somewhat clear from the verb 'List'.

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