Fact-check a 13F position-change claim against SEC Form 13F-HR

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by enumerating the four result statuses and, critically, warning that not_found does NOT mean the fund didn't hold the position and that filing-verified deltas cannot confirm an unchanged holding. That is exactly the negative-result context an agent needs to avoid over-claiming.

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-loaded with the trigger sentence and then the return semantics; the parentheticals are dense but each carries real information. Slightly long, but no sentence is filler.

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 supplies the return-value vocabulary and the interpretive caveats that would otherwise be missing, including the out_of_coverage state and the delta-only limitation. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so filer/issuer_name/cusip/quarter semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates the fund + issuer + quarter composite query shape but adds no new format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (verify/fact-check) plus the exact resource (a 13F position-change claim by a fund in an issuer in a quarter), which cleanly separates it from siblings like verify_activist_13d, verify_8k_event, and verify_insider_purchase.

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...' trigger naming the user intent, filer and issuer inputs. It also states a when-not via the caveat that unchanged holdings cannot be confirmed, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead when the claim is about 13D/8-K/insider activity.

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