Consensus Holdings Across Institutions

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

annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond it: valuation uses report-date closing prices, may fall back to filer values, and can legitimately be zero. The 'latest common report date' selection behavior is also disclosed.

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?

Four tightly-packed sentences: purpose and scope first, then ranking, then a valuation caveat, then a parameter hint. No filler, though the valuation sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry more of the return-value burden, and it only hints at output via 'ranks stocks by holder count, then combined value.' It never describes the returned fields or shape, and error behavior for ambiguous partial names is left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented structurally. The description largely restates schema content (minInstitutions threshold, common report date) rather than adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Combine 2-25 institutions' 13F portfolios on their latest common report date') plus the ranking logic ('by holder count, then combined value'). This is clearly distinguishable from a plain single-portfolio getter, but no sibling is named to disambiguate it from CompareInstitutionPortfolios or GetMostHeldStocks.

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 line 'Set minInstitutions to 2 or more for positions shared by multiple filers' implies when a parameter is warranted, and the '2-25 institutions' bound implies scope. However there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance nor any when-not statement, leaving the agent to infer the tool's niche from the sibling list.

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