Get Account Holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns portfolio holdings, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or required permissions. The low burden from annotations keeps this at a 3.

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, using two short sentences plus an 'Args' block. It front-loads the key purpose and immediately clarifies the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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, read-only operation, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It explains the parameter meaning and purpose. The presence of an output schema means return details are handled elsewhere, so the description does not need to elaborate. Minor improvement could mention that holdings are for investments, but overall adequate.

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 provides 0% description coverage, placing the full burden on the description. The description explains that 'account_id' is the ID of the investment/brokerage account, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. For a single parameter, this is sufficient, though more detail on format or validation would improve it.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves investment portfolio data (holdings) for a brokerage account, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('holdings'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_account_history' or 'get_accounts' by specifying 'holdings' and 'brokerage account', leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention what cases it is suitable for, nor does it exclude any scenarios. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., get_account_history, get_accounts), the agent needs explicit direction to select correctly.

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