Fund Stock Holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The description adds the data-source dependency for counter_id, but says nothing about pagination, ordering of returned holdings, or weight/date semantics of the result.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose lands first and the prerequisite second. It is slightly telegraphic (the provenance clause is compressed into a semicolon), but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'holding' entry contains (symbol, weight, shares?), and it does not. For a list-returning lookup tool with three parameters, that is a real but moderate gap.

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%, so the schema already documents counter_id with an example format and limit with its meaning. The description only restates the counter_id provenance and that limit is optional, adding no syntax or format detail 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 gives a specific verb ('Reverse-lookup') and resource ('individual stocks a fund holds'), making the direction of the query clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the near-named sibling fund_holdings, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the scope statement is unambiguous.

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?

It states the prerequisite for counter_id (from fund_hot / fund_list), which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never says when to pick this over fund_holdings or fund_holder, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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