get_fund_bond_holdings

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns a list of FundBondHolding, implying a read operation. However, it does not mention side effects, latency, pagination, or data freshness. Basic transparency but lacking detail.

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 very brief, with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter description is integrated. Perfectly concise 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 1 parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential. However, it does not specify whether holdings are current or historical, or clarify the structure of FundBondHolding (though output schema may handle that). Adequate but not exhaustive for a tool among many similar ones.

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 explains the single parameter 'ticker' as 'The symbol of the fund,' adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Ticker' label. Schema description coverage is 0%, so this explicit explanation compensates. Could include format or example, but adequate.

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 'Retrieve the bond holdings for a specific fund,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. Among siblings with many fund-related tools (e.g., get_fund_equity_holdings, get_fund_asset_class_holdings), this tool is distinct and unambiguous.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_fund_equity_holdings, get_fund_top_holdings). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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