Get All Brokerage Holdings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that this is a multi-step operation (fetch accounts, then holdings), that these run concurrently, and that a single account failure fails the whole call. This prevents an agent from misinterpreting it as one synchronous API request.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: scope and exclusion, execution model, and failure semantics. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (holdings grouped by brokerage account) and the important behavioral quirks (failure propagates). Nothing needed to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries no documentation burden. The description contributes no parameter meaning, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4.

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 first sentence names the exact resource (holdings), the grouping dimension (by brokerage account), and the explicit scope exclusion ('not all asset classes'). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_account_holdings and get_complete_financial_overview without opening schemas.

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 clearly frames this as the tool for brokerage-account-grouped holdings and explicitly warns it is not for all asset classes, implying a broader overview sibling should be chosen otherwise. It does not name the alternative tools explicitly, so it stops one step short of full routing guidance.

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