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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns one markdown section per bucket, sorts by absolute Δ market-value descending, and clarifies that Δ Value includes price movement, not just trading. It also explains the diffing logic against the prior quarter, giving the agent a clear picture of the output and interpretation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause contributes value. It efficiently conveys the core functionality, return format, sorting, and a usage example with no wasted 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the 100% schema coverage, and the read-only annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains the return format (markdown sections), sorting rationale, the meaning of Δ Value, and the applicable question it answers. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers expected results.

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?

The input schema already covers all four parameters with detailed descriptions (bucket values, default maxResults, date snapping, and institution name resolution). The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what is already present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('institution's quarterly position-change activity'), and enumerates the exact buckets (Initiated / Increased / Reduced / Exited) and the temporal comparison (vs. immediately prior quarter). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like GetInstitutionPortfolio and GetFundHoldings, which focus on current holdings rather than changes.

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 a concrete use case: 'Use this to answer "what did this fund do this quarter?"' and explains how to filter with the `bucket` parameter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, such as when a user needs a current holdings snapshot rather than change activity.

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