search_13f_managers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies a read-only search without disclosing pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and omits any unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., manager profiles, matching criteria). It does not, and it also lacks information about sorting, pagination mechanics beyond the schema, or any nuances. For a search tool with 4 parameters, this is a notable gap.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage of all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter purposes ('by name', 'minimum reported AUM') without adding new meaning, and there are no additional constraints or examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('13F institutional investment managers'), with scoping details ('by name, with minimum reported AUM') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_13f_holdings. It fully specifies what the tool does.

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 clearly establishes that this tool is for searching managers (not holdings or filings) by name and AUM filter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the full exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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