get_holdings

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that include_shares is 'slower', adding a performance consideration, and it notes dependencies on list_sessions/list_accounts. However, it does not describe the return format (though an output schema exists), error cases, or whether any state changes occur. The getter nature and 'slower' hint provide some transparency but leave gaps.

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 concise, with a single purpose sentence followed by three argument lines. It front-loads the core function and avoids any filler, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 presence of an output schema, return value details are not needed. The description covers all parameters with useful context, including parameter sources and the performance tradeoff. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but for a straightforward getter with simple arguments and schema coverage, it is quite complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter semantics. It explains the source of session and account_id, and clarifies the effect of include_shares ('fetch number of shares per holding (slower)'), adding meaning beyond the schema's names and types.

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 begins with 'Get holdings (stocks/ETFs) for an account', clearly stating the verb (get), the resource (holdings), and the scope (for an account). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_valuations or get_transactions, which focus on other data types.

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?

The description tells the user where to obtain the required parameters ('from list_sessions' and 'from list_accounts'), which implies a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_valuations or get_transactions, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative use cases.

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