fidelity_get_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait — the data originates from a positions CSV, not a live API — and names the returned fields, but says nothing about login/auth requirements, behavior when no CSV exists, error modes, or whether the read is read-only/safe.

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?

A single tightly-written sentence with the data source and returned fields front-loaded; every clause (source CSV, field list, `balance` alias) earns its place.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the field enumeration is necessary and present. However, for a credential-gated financial tool the description omits auth prerequisites, failure behavior, and whether the CSV must already be exported, leaving real gaps for an agent to discover at call time.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly frames it as a positional read requiring no inputs. Nothing in the description contradicts or obscures that.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('holdings for every account'), and enumerates the returned fields (ticker, quantity, price, value, balance). It implicitly separates itself from fidelity_get_accounts by returning holdings rather than account metadata, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it's the tool for reading portfolio positions versus fidelity_get_quote for a single price. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites such as fidelity_login, and no statement of when not to use it.

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