list_investments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the returned fields and indicates a read-only operation via 'List', but it doesn't mention that historic positions are excluded by default (as implied by the includeHistoric parameter) or any pagination behavior. This is a moderate gap but not a severe one.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and return values, and the second provides usage examples. No redundant or filler content, and the most important information is 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?

For a simple listing tool, the description covers what it returns and when to use it. It lacks explicit mention of default filtering (historic excluded) and pagination, but the return fields and example queries make it reasonably complete. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the return fields. Given the sibling tools and schema richness, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 100%, so both parameters (depotId and includeHistoric) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 tool lists the user's investment holdings with specific asset types (stocks, funds, bonds, ETFs) and specifies the returned fields (name, ISIN, type, lots, market value, gain/loss). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio_valuation or get_portfolio_allocation, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides explicit example use cases ('what do I own?' and 'show me my biggest positions') that signal when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over more specialized tools like get_portfolio_performance or get_gainers_and_losers.

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