Investments Get Holding Performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what data is returned, any rate limits, or authentication requirements. The lack of an output schema increases the need for description disclosure, which is absent.

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 extremely short but lacks substance. It does not contain any information that is not already evident from the tool's name and annotations. Effective conciseness would require meaningful content, which is missing.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no description of what 'holding performance' entails, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot infer required inputs, expected outputs, or how performance is calculated.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description adds no value for the parameters. It does not explain the purpose or format of 'start_date', 'end_date', 'holding_id', etc. The 'fields' and 'output_mode' parameters are described in the schema but the description ignores them entirely.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'holding performance', but it merely paraphrases the tool name without providing distinguishing details. Sibling tools like investments_get_holding and investments_get_portfolio exist, but the description does not clarify what 'performance' specifically means or how it differs from these siblings.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about typical use cases.

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