get_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'connected brokers' but does not explain behavior when no broker is connected, whether holdings are aggregated across brokers, or any permission/error scenarios. Minimal context is added beyond the basic function.

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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It earns its place structurally, though it is too terse to cover necessary semantics.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, yet the description is only a short phrase. It does not describe return shape, error cases, or how broker filtering works, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 does not mention the 'broker' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining how broker selection and the 'all' default work, but it provides no parameter semantics beyond what the enum values themselves imply.

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 resource ('stock holdings') with a source ('connected brokers'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like get_orders or get_mutual_funds, though get_positions could overlap and is not explicitly differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_positions or get_portfolio_summary, nor are prerequisites such as a successful broker connection mentioned. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and minimal description.

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