get_institutional_holdings

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'history' and 'who holds THIS stock', implying time-series data, but lacks specifics on data range, update frequency, or whether it shows current holdings.

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 concise, with one main sentence and a single line for alternative guidance. It is front-loaded but could benefit from a brief parameter explanation.

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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It clarifies the tool’s distinction from a sibling but does not describe return format, time range, or pagination. Adequate for a simple tool but lacking detail.

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 0%—no parameters are described in the schema properties. The description does not explain 'code' or 'num', leaving the agent to infer that 'code' is a stock identifier and 'num' possibly limits results. This is insufficient.

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 returns by-stock institutional holdings history, including Chinese terms and a reference to 13F filings. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_institution_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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. the sibling tool: 'For by-institution (which stocks an institution holds) use get_institution_holdings.' However, it does not provide additional context like prerequisites or limitations.

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