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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the read-only nature ('Get'), the selection mechanism (CIK or institution name), and a default value. However, it does not mention what happens if both parameters are provided, the return format, or any access limitations, so transparency is moderate. Score 3.

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 concise sentence with a second clarifying sentence about the default. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Score 5.

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 getter with two optional parameters, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's function. Since there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure, but that is acceptable for a straightforward data retrieval tool. Score 4.

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 describes both parameters fully, including a default for cik, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond repeating that the tool accepts CIK or institution name. 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'institutional investor 13F SEC filings'. It specifies the key parameters (CIK or institution name) and includes a default, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_market_indices, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 the tool is used to retrieve 13F filings for a given CIK or institution, which provides clear context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions or alternatives, so it lacks explicit usage guidance. Thus a score of 3.

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