get_gold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the prerequisite of connected brokers and the read-only nature of 'Fetch', but it does not describe what happens if no brokers are connected or other failure modes. This gives partial transparency.

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 wastes no words. It effectively states the tool's purpose without extraneous detail.

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?

For a simple tool with only one enum parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It names the resource and the prerequisite of connected brokers, which covers the essential use case. It does not mention return format, but that is not required when output schema is absent.

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 the description does not explain the 'broker' parameter at all. Although the enum values are self-explanatory and a default exists, the description should have compensated for the lack of schema coverage but does not.

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 (Fetch) and names the resource (gold holdings) along with the scope (from connected brokers). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_holdings and get_mutual_funds by specifying 'gold'.

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 for retrieving gold holdings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the more general get_holdings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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