Institution Quarterly Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: results are markdown sections per bucket, sorted by absolute Δ market-value descending, and Δ Value includes price movement rather than trading alone. It omits return-size/pagination behavior, but the core behavioral caveats are well 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers on filtering and output-format details. It is dense and mostly efficient, though the final 'Use this to answer...' sentence is somewhat rhetorical rather than strictly necessary.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so: markdown sections per bucket, separate rows by Type, and sorting by absolute Δ market-value. Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly and interpret its output shape.

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 the schema already explains all four parameters, including bucket enum-like options, maxResults clamping, and reportDate snapping. The description reinforces the bucket filter but adds little parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: getting an institution's quarterly position-change activity, with the four buckets (Initiated/Increased/Reduced/Exited) defined as quarter-over-quarter diffs. It clearly distinguishes itself from portfolio-holding siblings like GetInstitutionPortfolio by focusing on what changed this quarter, not what is held.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to answer 'what did this fund do this quarter?' and explains that `bucket` filters to one of the four buckets. It does not name alternative tools such as GetInstitutionPortfolio or CompareInstitutionPortfolios or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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