RiskModels 13F Filer

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the conditional behavior of holdings (only returned when holdings_top is set), the underlying endpoints and filing metadata (accession_number, filing_type, amendment_type), the null-before-vintage caveat, end-of-day pricing semantics, and explicit cost ($0.05, +$0.02 with holdings). This is rich, non-redundant behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the trigger and exclusions, then the return shape and cost. It is dense and information-rich, with every clause carrying semantic weight, though the parenthetical enumeration of filing_type/amendment_type values makes it slightly heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it names the return object ({ snapshot, holdings }), the data each part contains, the conditional rule for holdings, the filing metadata, and pricing. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the result 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: it clarifies that holdings are returned only when holdings_top is set, and explains the source filing fields surfaced alongside them. It stops short of restating the 1-200 bound, but the conditional logic it adds exceeds what the schema conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a 13F filer's profile, latest metrics, concentration, and optional largest holdings. It explicitly names what it is not for, distinguishing it from riskmodels_search and riskmodels_get_benchmark_fit, so an agent can route to it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use when you want...' trigger and follows with two concrete exclusions pointing to the correct alternatives (riskmodels_search for the id, riskmodels_get_benchmark_fit for benchmark comparison). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both fully spelled out.

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