Broker Holding (Daily)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds the data source (HKEX CCASS) and the output format (items array with fields), but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations cover.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states purpose and constraints, the second specifies the return format. This is concise and 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?

Given that an output schema exists (implied by the description of 'items[]{...}'), the description fully explains the return fields. It also notes the data source and the single-market constraint. For a simple read tool with full annotation coverage, this is complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Security symbol' and 'Broker participant number'). The description adds extra meaning: 'symbol' is constrained to HK stocks only, and 'broker_id' is implicitly linked to a broker participant number from HKEX CCASS. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'daily holding history', specifying the inputs (broker_id, symbol) and a key constraint (HK stocks only, sourced from HKEX CCASS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'broker_holding' and 'broker_holding_detail' by emphasizing the daily frequency and data source.

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 implicitly suggests usage for retrieving daily holdings but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The constraint of HK stocks only is given, but no guidance on choosing this over 'broker_holding' or 'broker_holding_detail' is provided.

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