Get holding detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already ensures the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying what content will be returned: valuation history, and for liabilities the rate, term, secured-on links, and recorded payments. This gives valuable context about the tool's output behavior, which is particularly useful given there is no output schema.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core concept ('One holding in full') before detailing what is included. Every part of the sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what will be returned (valuation history; for liabilities, terms and payments), covers the main distinctions, and is complete for the tool's purpose. There is no missing critical context for selecting or invoking this tool.

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 input schema already provides full coverage with a clear description for holdingId ('Holding id from list_holdings.'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics or usage notes beyond what the schema already states. It correctly points to list_holdings as the source of the ID, but this is already in the 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 clearly states this tool returns the full detail of a single holding, including valuation history and for liabilities the terms and recorded payments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_holdings, which would provide an overview rather than full detail. The phrase 'One holding in full' immediately conveys the scope and purpose.

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 use this tool when you need complete details of a specific holding, as opposed to list_holdings which likely provides a summary. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear that this is for single-holding deep-dive, not list-level operations. This is stronger than mere implication but falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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