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

Annotations already provide the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds a useful caveat about data completeness with 'when available,' but it does not disclose pagination, response shape, or how symbol ambiguity might be resolved. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with the verb and object front-loaded, followed by useful return-field details. There is no filler or repetition of the tool title.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description names the key returned fields and the query target. It omits pagination or limit behavior and does not distinguish it from potentially overlapping holdings tools, but the schema and annotations cover enough for a basic call.

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 description contributes almost nothing to parameter understanding: only 'for a company' loosely maps to the symbol parameter, and limit and exchange are not mentioned. Schema coverage is 67%, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented limit behavior or add meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('List') and a clear resource ('institutional holders for a company'), and it lists the core data fields returned (report dates, shares, values, ownership percentages). It is easy to distinguish from quote or history tools, but it does not explicitly disambiguate from the closely related sibling sec.thirteenf_holders.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as sec.thirteenf_holders or company.profile. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or routing hints, so the agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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