get_institutional_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the important merging behavior across manager rows with a concrete example (Berkshire/Apple) and explains why this matters. It also states the ordering. While it doesn't discuss error handling or rate limits, the disclosed behaviors are significant and valuable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides distinct value: what the tool does, how to specify the target, and a non-obvious merging behavior with a concrete example. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the key behaviors necessary to use the tool correctly: target identification, result ordering, merger handling, and the optional source parameter is explained in the schema. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are covered elsewhere. It lacks mention of pagination or potential edge cases, but those are not essential for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by giving examples (BRK-B, 1067983) and explaining why the institution parameter can be either a ticker or CIK. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Latest 13F-HR portfolio for an institutional manager.' It clearly states what the tool returns and even provides ordering ('every reported position, largest first'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on institutional holdings, which none of the siblings cover.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to retrieve an institutional manager's portfolio) and how to specify the institution (ticker or CIK). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the use case is unambiguous given the sibling list.

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