get_13f_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially does so: it discloses the quarter default (latest), the 1-5000 limit range, and the provenance guarantee that each row links back to its source filing. It omits operational traits such as auth requirements, behavior when a quarter has no filing, and the ~45-day reporting lag that governs 13F data freshness.

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?

Well front-loaded: the one-line purpose precedes structured Args and Returns blocks, so scanning is easy. The Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, and the filing_url explanation runs longer than needed, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Parameters are fully covered and the return shape is spelled out, so the agent has enough to invoke correctly for a three-parameter retrieval tool. The remaining gap is guidance on edge cases (unknown CIK, quarters with no holdings, stale data) rather than anything about the call mechanics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does completely: institution_cik gets a concrete example (1067983, Berkshire Hathaway), quarter gets both a format and an example ("2026-Q1") plus the 'latest' default, and limit gets its range and default. Every parameter is documented with more detail than the schema offers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching 13F-HR institutional holdings for a named investment manager. The 13F-HR scope cleanly separates it from siblings like get_insider_trades (Form 4) and get_8k_events, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It never mentions alternatives such as get_recent_filings or get_insider_trades, nor a prerequisite such as knowing the institution's CIK. The agent must infer that this is for institutional long-position lookups.

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