get_asset_allocation

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output structure ('allocation by asset class... dollar values and percentages, then lists holdings per account') but omits behavioral details like rate limits, data freshness, or that it's read-only. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, each adding value: first states purpose, second elaborates on output, third guides parameter use. No redundant words, well 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 low complexity (1 optional param, output schema exists), the description covers tool function and filter usage effectively. It could improve by mentioning default behavior (all accounts) or edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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 only parameter, account_filter, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining its purpose and providing usage examples ('focus on retirement accounts, a specific brokerage, etc.'), adding meaningful guidance 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 'Show investment holdings and asset allocation breakdown' with specific verb 'show' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_net_worth, get_transactions, list_accounts, and check_auth_status, which cover different financial data.

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 provides clear context for the account_filter parameter with examples ('retirement accounts, a specific brokerage, etc.'), guiding when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools.

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