search_13f_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the manager→security position relationship, but does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering nuances, sorting, or any side effects. This is minimal for a search tool.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler 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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain how parameters combine, what data is returned, or how pagination works, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke 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 description coverage is only 33% (limit and cursor are described), and the description adds no parameter details. Six parameters exist, including cusip, issuer, manager, and min_value, none of which are explained in the description. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 searches 13F institutional holdings, using the specific verb 'search' and identifying the resource. The parenthetical '(manager → security positions)' clarifies the data structure and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_13f_managers or search_fund_holdings.

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 implies usage for 13F holdings queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_13f_managers or search_fund_holdings. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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