get_holdings_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a Plaid-only read of current positions and lists return contents, but it does not explain optional account_id behavior, whether data is cached, or any authentication/linking requirements beyond the Plaid constraint.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second gives the critical provider limitation. No words are wasted.

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 description is adequate for selecting the tool and understanding its return fields, but it is incomplete for correct invocation because it does not explain the optional account_id parameter or the effect of passing null. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on filtering behavior would be valuable.

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 mention account_id at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify whether omitting it returns all holdings or requires an account, so the agent lacks important invocation semantics.

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 clearly identifies the resource as current investment positions and lists the key fields returned (tickers, quantities, market value, cost basis). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_investment_transactions_tool, but 'positions' vs 'transactions' is reasonably clear.

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 gives explicit provider guidance: 'Plaid-only — Teller has no INVESTMENTS capability.' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable and when it is not, though it does not name alternative sibling tools for investment transactions.

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