get_institutional_holding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral details beyond these, such as response structure or rate limits, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for some return format explanation.

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 extremely concise with no fluff. It uses XML tags (strategy, example) for structure, presents purpose first, then usage context, then parameter list. Every element adds value.

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?

The tool has well-documented annotations, a clear purpose, and an output schema (not shown but expected). The description, combined with structured fields, provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations: 'symbol: Security symbol' and 'report_date: Report period (optional)'. The example '000001.SZ' clarifies symbol format, but report_date format is unspecified, which could be improved.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get institutional holdings for a stock' with a specific verb and resource. The strategy tag reinforces the purpose ('use to see which institutions hold the stock'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_fund_holding or get_shareholder_top.

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 includes a <strategy> tag providing context on when to use ('to see which institutions hold the stock') and a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use, leaving minor ambiguity.

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