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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: the archive is being backfilled, the tool defaults to the most complete quarter, flags quarters still loading, and notes that a 'new_position' may be a renamed or re-coded entity. It does not mention pagination or data freshness specifics, but it covers the key behavioral nuances that matter to an agent.

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 key purpose in all caps, followed by data fields, freshness distinction, and archive behavior. While a bit dense, each sentence contributes a distinct and useful piece of information, and it remains compact given the behavioral complexity it covers.

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 is strong on output semantics and freshness behavior but lacks essential contextual details about parameters (limit, min_pct, quarter) and does not mention response structure or pagination. Without an output schema or annotations, these omissions leave the tool only partially specified for an agent to use confidently.

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% (just a trivial 'Path parameter ticker' note), and the description does not meaningfully elaborate any of the parameters. It never explains the 'limit', 'min_pct', or 'quarter' parameters, nor does it mention how they affect the response. This is a critical gap for a 4-parameter tool with mostly undocumented parameters.

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's function: it returns CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS of a company, largest first, with shares, market value, percent outstanding, and changes versus the prior report. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by branding itself as the 'FRESH ownership view' versus the older archive served by /intel/top_shareholders and /intel/sec13f.

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 provides explicit use versus alternative guidance: 'This is the FRESH ownership view; /intel/top_shareholders and /intel/sec13f serve the older archive.' It also explains the backfill context and how the tool defaults to the most complete quarter, helping the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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