List holdings

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds value by explaining the scope ('on the balance sheet') and defining key response fields (ownershipPercent, latestValue). This clarifies what data the user will receive. It does not address pagination or ordering, but the read-only annotation already covers the safety profile.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence lists what is included, the second defines two important fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description provides enough context: it specifies what holdings are included, the optional filter, and the meaning of two key fields. It does not explicitly state that omitting nature returns both types, but 'All holdings' implies this. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the field definitions.

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 100% for the only parameter 'nature', which already explains its purpose and enum values. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does mention asset and liability categories that align with the enum, but this is redundant.

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 what the tool does: it lists all holdings on the balance sheet, distinguishing assets and liabilities with examples. The verb 'list' is implicit in the name and the description's 'All holdings' makes the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools like list_accounts (accounts vs holdings) and get_holding (singular vs plural).

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: use this tool to get a full list of holdings, optionally filtered by nature. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_accounts or get_holding, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context of siblings is present but the description itself does not reference them.

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