Get Account Allocation

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint true, and the description adds value by disclosing the breakdown categories (stocks, options, futures, cash, bonds, etc.) and the output format (percentages and values). It does not contradict the annotations and provides helpful context about return content, though it omits details like default account behavior (which is in the schema).

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's output and purpose without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The tool is simple with only one optional parameter and a clear output. The description, combined with the schema, covers the essential information: what the tool returns, what the parameter means, and the read-only nature. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys the return format.

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 schema already fully describes the single optional parameter (accountId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account allocation breakdown'), and clarifies the tool's output: distribution across asset classes as percentages and values. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_account_summary and get_positions.

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 implies the tool's purpose (to view allocation), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude other scenarios. There is no mention of related tools such as get_account_summary or get_positions, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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