get_institutional_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but omits details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. The return type is vague ('Any') and unhelpful.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The structured Args/Returns section is clear, though the Returns line is vague and could be removed or improved without harming conciseness.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should specify the return format, structure, and any constraints (e.g., pagination, data limits). The vague 'Any' return type fails to provide the completeness needed for an agent to reliably use the result.

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 parameter 'ticker' has zero schema description coverage (0%), but the docstring adds that it is 'The symbol of the security.' This clarifies its meaning beyond the schema, though format conventions (e.g., ticker symbol style) are omitted.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('institutional holdings for a given ticker'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle different holding types like fund top holdings or major holders.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_full_holdings or get_major_holders. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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