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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the safety is known. The description adds valuable context: it reports 13F value for long U.S. positions only (not total AUM) and highlights that ambiguous partial names yield candidate CIKs rather than an implicit pick. These are non-obvious behaviors that help the agent set expectations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence packs a dense list of returned fields; the second succinctly gives resolution guidance. Every phrase earns its place.

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 2-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description conveys the scope, key output fields, and edge-case behavior (ambiguous names). The schema already handles reportDate snapping, so nothing crucial 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 description coverage is 100% – both parameters have clear descriptions (institutionName resolution rules, reportDate default and snapping behavior). The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.

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 returns a portfolio summary header for institutional 13F filers, enumerating specific metrics (13F value, position count, concentration, turnover, dates, quarters tracked). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetInstitutionPortfolio or GetInstitutionQuarterlyActivity by positioning it as the summary-level view.

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 gives explicit guidance to resolve CIKs using SearchInstitutions and notes that ambiguous names return candidates rather than being silently resolved, which is a clear usage hint. It also clarifies scope ('not total firm AUM'), but does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this tool over other institution-related siblings.

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