get_holdings

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does signal a read-only retrieval and clarifies that intraday positions are excluded, which is useful scope context. It does not cover return shape, whether holdings are empty for new accounts, or any auth/permission requirements — moderate gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence with the key scope distinction front-loaded in the parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to decide to call it and roughly what comes back. It stops short of describing the holdings record fields, which leaves a small residual gap since no output schema documents them.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get long-term equity holdings') and adds a scope qualifier ('stocks held in demat, not intraday positions') that separates it from get_positions. The word 'equity' also implicitly excludes get_mf_holdings, so an agent can pick the right sibling without opening any schema.

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 parenthetical implies when this tool applies (portfolio holdings) versus intraday positions, but it never names get_positions or get_mf_holdings as alternatives or states an explicit selection rule. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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