search_fund_holdings

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 states the basic search action and does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (despite schema having limit/cursor), the nature of returned data, any read-only status, or rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform agents about side effects, response format, or operational constraints.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. It is appropriately brief and contains no redundant or filler content. It earns its place by capturing the essence without bloat.

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?

This is a complex tool with 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only the basic subject and does not explain N-PORT context, return value structure, pagination, or differentiation from 13F holdings. Given the tool's complexity, this minimal description is inadequate for an agent to use it effectively.

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 28% (5 of 18 parameters), so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters (e.g., isin, cusip, series_id, report_date). The description provides no parameter-specific information at all, merely naming the resource. It fails to clarify the meaning or usage of the remaining parameters, leaving agents to guess.

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's function with a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('N-PORT registered-fund portfolio holdings'), and a clarifying parenthetical ('mutual funds / ETFs → security positions') that distinguishes it from related tools like search_13f_holdings. It unambiguously identifies the domain and scope.

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 provides clear context by specifying that this searches N-PORT registered-fund portfolio holdings, which implies it is for mutual fund/ETF security positions, distinct from 13F holdings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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