get_institution_distribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. As a data retrieval tool, it likely does not modify state, but that is not clarified.

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 very short (one phrase), which is concise but insufficiently informative. It sacrifices essential details for brevity, making it under-specified.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It fails to explain input constraints, output structure, or usage context, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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 has two required parameters (market, institution_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values or formats.

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 'Institution holding industry distribution - 机构持仓行业分布' indicates the tool returns industry distribution data for institutional holdings, clarifying the resource. However, it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'get', 'retrieve') and largely restates the tool name, providing minimal differentiation from siblings like get_institutional_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_institutional_holdings or get_holder_detail. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based on the name.

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