get_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only retrieval via 'Get', but it does not describe pagination, data freshness, authorization requirements, or any other runtime behavior. This leaves a meaningful transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description states the core action and resource. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral detail beyond the purpose, an agent gets only the minimum viable context and may still need to infer details about account selection and response behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add context by framing account_id as belonging to a 'portfolio account', but it does not explain where the ID comes from, its format, or any constraints beyond the schema's required flag. For a single simple parameter this is adequate but not rich.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('holdings and reported valuations for a portfolio account'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also distinguishable from sibling tools like list_accounts and get_transactions based on the resource named.

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 phrase 'for a portfolio account' implies the tool is used after an account is identified, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over list_accounts or get_transactions. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are stated, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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