Verify a 13F holding claim against SEC Form 13F-HR

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses distinct negative outcomes (not_held as a filed 'no' vs not_found), the coverage-window concept, staleness ('up to ~45 days stale'), and the guarantee that 'Every response states the coverage window checked.' These are behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: core action in the first sentence, outcome vocabulary immediately after, and a compact 'Rule-2' for limitations. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, it is remarkably complete: the possible return statuses, source link, coverage window, match key rules, and staleness are all stated. An agent can predict both the input requirements and the likely response variants before invoking the tool.

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 adds real meaning: it explains why ticker is never accepted, ties values to quarter-end as-of dates, and explains start/end as a span when the claim crosses quarters. One inconsistency remains: the schema's required array is empty while the filer property is marked REQUIRED, though the description itself at least identifies filer as the key lookup input.

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 opens with a specific check verb and resource ('Check whether a fund (filer name/CIK) HELD an issuer ... against the filed 13F-HR record') and enumerates distinct return statuses (held, not_held, not_found, out_of_coverage), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This is clearly separated from sibling verification tools by the 13F-specific scope and status vocabulary.

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 clearly sets the context: verifying a historical 13F holding claim by quarter, and even gives exclusions ('LONG US 13(f) positions only', 'ticker is never accepted'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when another verification tool would be preferred, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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