get_us_stocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states that data comes from connected brokers, but does not describe return format, aggregation across brokers, error behavior, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no wasted words. It states the verb, resource, and source efficiently.

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 read-only holdings tool, the core purpose is clear, but without an output schema or annotations, the description does not specify what a returned holding includes (symbol, quantity, etc.) or the behavior when no brokers are connected. It is minimally viable but lacks completeness.

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, and schema description coverage is 0%. Although the schema's enum values and default are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate or add any meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'US stock holdings' and source 'connected brokers', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_holdings, get_mutual_funds, or get_gold by restricting to US stocks.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_holdings or get_positions. The 'US stock holdings' phrasing implies a use case, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative comparisons are stated.

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