influence_map

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the freshness problem with 13D filings (no exit obligation below 5%), the use of current board seats to validate old stakes, and the caveat that percent_of_class is not voting power (dual-class divergence). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: definition, regulatory basis, data-source rationale, freshness fix, caveat, and concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, with no filler or redundant content.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the underlying logic, data sources, freshness issue, dual-class caveat, and expected results with a named example. It is self-contained enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional clarification.

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 carries the full burden. It explains min_tier as a presumption tier with values 10/15/25/50 and min_value_usd as a 13F size proxy to filter out nano-caps. The limit parameter is not explicitly described, but its default and purpose are self-evident.

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 identifies issuers where a holder has a big stake AND currently sits on the board, citing a specific regulatory test (12 CFR 225.2(e)). It differentiates from simple screeners by emphasizing 'the pairing is the finding,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that might return either list independently.

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?

It explicitly recommends the tool as 'the best place to start a governance or counterparty question' and explains why the conjunction of 13D and Form 3/4/5 is uniquely valuable. It does not name specific alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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