Get Account Holdings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read-only operation, and the description aligns with this. Beyond that, the description adds little behavioral context (e.g., error handling, pagination, or response format). It provides a minor clue about the account_id source but does not enhance transparency significantly beyond the annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes the essential source hint. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter source. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_all_holdings, but for a straightforward read operation, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance versus siblings.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the account_id parameter. It adds meaning by specifying that the account_id comes from get_accounts, which helps the agent understand how to obtain a valid value. This is a useful semantic hint beyond the bare schema definition.

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 specific action: 'Get investment holdings' for a given account_id, and it mentions the source of account_id ('from get_accounts'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from broader alternatives like get_all_holdings, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 implies that account_id should come from get_accounts, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of other holdings-related tools (e.g., get_all_holdings) or any exclusions. The usage context is hinted but not fully articulated.

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