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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds transparency by disclosing the data source (SEC DERA structured tables) and a scope limitation (81 symbols), but it does not mention behavior like error handling, range constraints, or whether only the 81 symbols are supported.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and output components. It uses a colon to list what is included, achieving maximum clarity in minimal words.

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 with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the output content but leaves gaps: it does not explain the 81-symbol limitation, parameter formats, or the meaning of start/end. Some important context for successful invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (end, start, symbol). It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as symbol being required or date format expectations.

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 returns quarterly 13F institutional aggregates including holders, shares, value, and QoQ deltas, sourced from SEC DERA tables. This specific verb and resource set distinguishes it from siblings like get_insider and get_fundamentals.

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 use when institutional 13F holdings data is needed, with clear context about the quarterly cadence and QoQ changes. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is distinct enough that the intended use is evident.

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