equity_superinvestors

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate a safe, read-only operation. Description adds rich behavioral details: tracks ~80 investors, computes directional score blending ownership breadth and net activity, lists returned fields. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: purpose paragraph, usage context, clearly labeled Args/Returns/Examples sections. No unnecessary words; every sentence 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?

Given a single-ticker tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers purpose, data source, scoring logic, output fields, and usage examples. No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (ticker format, response_format options). Description does not add significant meaning beyond restating schema and providing usage examples. With high schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Check which renowned value investors hold a stock and their recent activity', using a specific verb and resource. Easily distinguishes from sibling tools like analyst consensus, options signals, etc.

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?

Provides explicit context with examples ('Do any famous investors own Berkshire?') and explains the tool's data source (Dataroma) and output (directional score). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but implied by sibling coverage.

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