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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond explaining the data source and format. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs are mentioned.

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 with two clear paragraphs, including a one-sentence purpose statement and structured parameter documentation. No unnecessary 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?

The description provides adequate context for a read-only tool with well-documented parameters. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return format or fields, which would be helpful for complex holdings data.

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 fully explains both parameters: filer_cik can be a CIK number or fund name, and quarter uses YYYY-QN format. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves SEC Form 13F-HR holdings for institutional investors, providing examples of filers and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_form_4_insider_trades or get_schedule_13d_activist.

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 specifies the tool is for institutional investor positions with $100M+ AUM and gives quarterly disclosure context. It implies when to use it but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, though sibling tool list provides some guidance.

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