datasets_sec_institutional_positions_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and handles it well by disclosing the exact-vs-best-effort nature of filters and the absence of an authoritative CUSIP-to-CIK mapping. It does not discuss pagination limits, response shape, or error behavior, but the join-caveat is the most critical behavioral nuance here and is clearly stated.

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?

Three well-organized sentences: what the dataset is, how to filter reliably, and what sort options exist. No filler, front-loaded purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The most important caveat is embedded naturally without bloating the text.

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 tool is a search endpoint with six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain core search semantics. It explains the data source, the two search intents, and the key limitation, which is sufficient for the agent to invoke correctly. Minor missing context includes return-shape hints, but pagination details are already in the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description exceeds that baseline by explaining the reliability hierarchy among parameters (manager_cik as exact, issuer_name/cusip as best-effort) and enumerating allowed sort values. This contextual glue is not present in the schema descriptions and materially helps an agent choose parameters.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Search') and a specific resource ('SEC institutional positions dataset' with quarterly 13F holdings). It accurately conveys what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from closely related sibling tools like sec_institutional_holdings or datasets_sec_institutional_positions_facets, leaving that differentiation to the agent.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on when to use each filter path: manager_cik for a reliable full-portfolio lookup, and issuer_name/cusip for best-effort reverse lookup, including the important caveat about missing CUSIP-to-CIK mapping. It doesn't explicitly reference alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when-to-use-vs-alternatives statement.

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