Investments List Holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the behavioral profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, pagination, response structure). Given annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description meets the minimum but adds no value.

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 two words, which is extremely concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary context for a tool with 5 parameters. While front-loaded, it does not earn its place by providing useful information beyond the title.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and only 40% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what holdings are listed, how account_ids or include_hidden_holdings affect results, or what output_mode does. Annotations cover safety but not functional completeness.

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 40% (only fields and output_mode have descriptions). The description 'List holdings' does not explain any parameter. Parameters account_ids, session_path, and include_hidden_holdings are left completely undocumented by both schema and description. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List holdings' specifies a verb and resource, which is clear but vague. It distinguishes from 'get_holding' (single) and 'create_manual_holding' etc., but does not specify scope (e.g., all holdings, per account, filtering). The purpose is understood but not nuanced.

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. The description does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives like investments_get_holding or investments_get_portfolio. The agent must infer context from sibling names alone.

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