Get Institutional Holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for added value is lower. The description adds a crucial behavioral nuance—positions are merged across separate fund rows (e.g., Berkshire's Apple across 12 rows)—which prevents undercounting. It also discloses accepted identifiers.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy: the first states purpose and output order, the second explains a non-obvious data-integrity detail. Every word is useful.

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 read-only list tool with good schema coverage and safe annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, input, and output ordering. It doesn't specify the exact fields in each position, but the merging nuance and input flexibility make it adequate.

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 three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the ticker/CIK alternative and the merging behavior but doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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 opens with 'Latest 13F-HR portfolio for an institutional manager — every reported position, largest first,' using a specific verb and resource, and clarifies input formats (ticker or CIK). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_filing or get_edgar_filings by focusing on institutional manager holdings.

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?

It gives clear context: this is for retrieving a manager's complete 13F portfolio, with a note about merging multiple rows. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity implies when it's appropriate.

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