get_asset_allocation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains that the tool shows allocation by asset class with dollar values and percentages, and lists holdings per account. However, it does not mention whether data is real-time or historical, any authentication requirements, or if the tool is read-only (assumed safe). Adequate but not thorough.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the main action, the second elaborates on output details, and the third provides parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate true), the description does not need to explain return structure. It sufficiently covers the key behaviors (asset class breakdown and per-account listing), includes parameter usage, and matches the tool's complexity. Minor omission: no mention of data scope (e.g., all accounts or filtered).

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, account_filter. The description adds value by stating 'Use account_filter to focus on retirement accounts, a specific brokerage, etc.,' which gives contextual usage beyond the parameter name. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though format constraints are not detailed.

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 opens with 'Show investment holdings and asset allocation breakdown,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It further details the output format (by asset class with values and percentages, then per account), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like get_transactions or get_net_worth.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides parameter guidance ('Use account_filter to focus on retirement accounts...') but lacks comparison or exclusions relative to sibling tools. The purpose implies usage context, but direct guidance is missing.

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