Investments Get Holding

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read, so the description does not need to restate that. But it adds no behavioral context such as whether a missing holding_id returns an error, what response shape to expect, or how output_mode/fields affect results.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It only repeats the tool name and earns no additional informational value.

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 three parameters, absent output schema, and a crowded investments sibling group, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It does not mention return shape, filtering, or the relationship to list_holdings/get_holding_performance.

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 coverage is 67%; fields and output_mode have descriptions, but the required holding_id has none and the description does not fill that gap. An agent is left to infer that holding_id identifies which holding to fetch.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Get holding'), so an agent can tell this is the read-single-holding tool. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and leaves the boundary against investments_get_holding_performance and investments_list_holdings to inference.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of investments_list_holdings or investments_get_holding_performance. The intended use case (retrieve one holding when you already have its holding_id) is only implied by the name and schema.

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