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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the point-in-time cutoff, the default of today, and that filings after as_of are hidden, which prevents look-ahead bias.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It efficiently conveys the core behavior and temporal filtering rule.

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 simple two-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers temporal behavior well. However, it leaves the required query parameter's semantics unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given the 50% schema description coverage.

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 only 50%. The as_of parameter is already well documented in the schema, while the required query parameter has no schema description and the tool description adds almost nothing beyond 'matching a query', leaving its expected syntax or matching semantics undefined.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('13F holdings') along with point-in-time scope. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools such as get_fundamentals_pit or get_cot.

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 when to use the tool via 'matching a query' and the as_of cutoff, but it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or guidance on when another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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