get_margins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Get margins' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the data returns in, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is essentially non-functional for behavioral understanding.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, so its brevity is a liability. There's no structure or front-loading of important information - it's just a minimal restatement of the tool name.

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 financial data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description 'Get margins' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what margins are in this context, what data format to expect, when this tool should be used versus other financial data tools, or any operational considerations. The context signals show this is a simple tool with one optional parameter, but the description fails to provide even basic contextual understanding.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (client_id), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is acceptable given the schema's complete coverage. However, since there's only one optional parameter, the description could have mentioned the account context but isn't penalized for not doing so.

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 'Get margins' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of margins (trading, profit, formatting?), what resource they're associated with, or what the operation actually does. While it uses a clear verb ('Get'), the object 'margins' is too vague to understand the tool's 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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include many financial/trading operations (get_holdings, get_positions, get_quotes, etc.), there's no indication of when 'margins' would be relevant versus other financial data tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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