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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, yet the description adds real substance: full-book coverage including exited positions rather than a top-ten preview, the caveat that weight changes are not share purchases, what is *not* inferred (provider calls, price returns, shares, cost basis), and the pagination contract (next_offset + snapshot_version with identical filters).

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then parameter and pagination detail; every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly cramped (line-broken clauses), but there is no filler.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and budget-style annotations, the description supplies resolution behavior, date constraints, coverage guarantees, pagination, and explicit inference exclusions — everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it — fund resolution, report_date format, view=history semantics, ticker filtering, limit range/default, and offset/snapshot_version paging. The remaining gap is that the non-history view values are only implied ('holdings' default), and snapshot_version's nature as a consistency token is only sketched.

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?

Specific verb (Show) plus a precisely scoped resource (a tracked fund's latest / past-quarter / full-history disclosed holdings). The fund-level framing implicitly separates it from get_13f_stock_ownership and get_13f_funds, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete selection rules: fund accepts a listed ID, fund name, or manager name with candidate fallback on ambiguity; report_date must be 'latest' or an exact quarter-end from available_reports; history requires report_date=latest. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_13f_stock_ownership, but constraints are unusually clear.

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