get_institution_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. The description only explains view options and change_type, omitting critical 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph with mixed language (Chinese characters). It conveys key information but lacks structuring (e.g., bullet points) and could be more readable. Every sentence adds some value, but the format hinders quick parsing.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or the interpretation of 'holdings' data. Required parameters like 'market' and 'institution_id' are undocumented.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining 'view' (list/change) and 'change_type' (NEW/INCREASE/DECREASE/CLEAR). However, it fails to explain 'num', 'market', or 'institution_id', leaving required parameters undefined.

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 states the tool retrieves holdings by institution, distinguishing between 'list' and 'change' views, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_institutional_holdings. This provides a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 explicitly contrasts with get_institutional_holdings, stating 'This is the BY-INSTITUTION direction... distinct from get_institutional_holdings (who holds a given stock).' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. the alternative.

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