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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: the 5% threshold, the 13D vs 13G distinction (active vs passive), the cover-page source, and the returned fields. But it does not disclose behavior for omitted parameters, default sorting, date ranges, pagination, or output format, so an agent cannot fully anticipate call results.

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 information-dense sentence that front-loads the critical facts: threshold, form types, and returned fields. The second clause is brief and clarifies usage. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title, making it appropriately concise.

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?

This tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools. The description defines the fetched fields and one usage pattern, but omits how days, form, and sort interact, what happens when no parameters are provided, and any default behavior or limitations. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke this correctly in all plausible scenarios.

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 only 25% (only symbol has a description). The description's clause 'For a symbol or the latest filings' loosely hints at symbol and possibly days, but it does not explain the semantics of days, form, or sort. With the schema leaving three parameters effectively undocumented and the description not compensating, an agent must infer too much to construct correct calls.

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 what the tool returns: 'Holders above 5% from Schedule 13D (active) and 13G (passive) cover pages' with fields 'holder, shares, percent of class, filing date.' It identifies a specific resource and distinguishes from generic fund-holder tools by regulatory form. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not differentiate from siblings by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'For a symbol or the latest filings' implies the two main invocation modes (by ticker or by recency), providing some usage context. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as fund_holders or insider_trades, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Guidance is only implied.

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