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

Annotations already cover safety traits (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds useful context: the data comes from 13F filings, covers the latest quarter, and includes a 'not investment advice' caveat. It does not disclose filing lag, update cadence, or coverage limitations, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently enumerates stock, fund, and default modes. It is dense but every clause contributes useful scope or caveat information.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could be stronger with explicit sibling routing, but no critical invocation detail 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode semantics beyond the schema: ticker drives stock-level results, fund drives fund-level results, and neither drives market-wide results. It does not expand on limit behavior beyond the schema's '1 to 100'.

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 states a specific resource and origin: hedge fund/institutional moves from 13F filings, with stock-level, fund-level, and market-wide modes. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_smart_money, get_whale_trades, or list_top_shareholders.

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?

It clearly explains the three invocation modes: pass a ticker for a stock, pass fund= for a specific fund, or omit both for market-wide biggest moves. It does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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