Investments List Holdings

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. But 'List holdings' contributes no behavioral detail beyond that—no mention of default output_mode, hidden-holding handling, pagination, or that results are an open set. With no output schema, the agent has no further behavioral signal.

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 text is three words, front-loaded, and free of filler—readable at a glance. It is concise but under-specified, so it earns a moderate score rather than a top score.

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?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling family, this terse description is not enough: it does not state what a holding is, how account_ids constrains results, what summary/full/raw means for this domain, or when to choose sibling tools. Annotations cover safety but not call semantics.

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 covers fields and output_mode well, including enum choices, but account_ids and include_hidden_holdings are bare. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, so an agent must infer account filtering and hidden-holding defaults from names alone.

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 states a concrete verb ('List') and resource ('holdings'), and the plural form distinguishes it from the singular investments_get_holding sibling. However, it does no more than restate the title and gives no detail on scope, filters, or what counts as a holding.

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 on when to prefer this tool over investments_get_holding, investments_get_portfolio, or investments_list_investment_accounts. The only implied cue is the plural list verb, which is not explicit enough for an agent choosing among related investment siblings.

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