get_account_holdings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably accesses sensitive financial data.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and parameters. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first. No wasted words, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more polished.

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 tool accessing investment holdings with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'holdings' includes (stocks, bonds, cash), return format, authentication requirements, or error handling. Given the financial context and lack of structured documentation, more completeness is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantics for the single parameter ('The ID of the investment account'), which adds value beyond the schema's minimal documentation. However, it doesn't explain format requirements, validation rules, or where to find account IDs, leaving room for improvement.

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 resource 'investment holdings for a specific account', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_accounts' or 'get_transactions' which might also retrieve account-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_accounts' or 'get_transactions'. It mentions 'specific account' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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