get_all_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only retrieval operation and lists the returned data categories, but it does not address authentication needs, response structure, or any other behavioral constraints. The read-only nature is inferable from 'Get' but not formally backed by annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action and distinguishing output features are front-loaded and immediately scannable by an agent.

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?

For a parameterless read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits any mention of authentication/session prerequisites and does not explicitly resolve the ambiguity with the similarly named get_holdings sibling, so more contextual guidance would make it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so no parameter-level documentation is needed. The description adds useful context by clarifying that results include both holdings and computed summary fields, which is more than the empty input schema conveys.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('holdings'), and the added output ('portfolio-level summary' with total investment, current value, P&L). It implicitly differentiates from the sibling get_holdings by mentioning the summary, but it does not name or explicitly contrast 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 implied: choose this tool when you need holdings plus portfolio-level summary numbers. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use get_holdings instead, nor any mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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