Veroq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: the 'COST: 2 credits' (rate limiting), data source (13F filings), and return structure. It could improve by mentioning data freshness or caching behavior, but covers the essential operational constraints.

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?

Excellent structure with clear semantic headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Information is front-loaded with the core action first, followed by operational metadata. Zero wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively documents the return values ('Total institutional ownership %, summary stats, and top holders with shares, value, percent held, change, and filing date'). For a single-parameter read-only data tool, this provides complete contextual coverage.

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% with the ticker parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing the concrete 'EXAMPLE: { "ticker": "AAPL" }', which clarifies the expected JSON structure and format for the agent.

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 'Get[s] institutional ownership data for a stock' with specific details about 'top holders and ownership changes from 13F filings.' This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like veroq_insider (individual insider trades) or veroq_ticker_analysis (general analysis).

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section clearly states the use case: 'To see which institutions own a stock and whether they're increasing or decreasing positions.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives to avoid (e.g., veroq_insider for individual executives), the guidance is clear enough to differentiate from the 49 siblings.

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