Search Institutional Investors

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses matching semantics, alias behavior for major brands, result ordering by largest recently-active filer, included comparison fields, valuation fallback behavior, and the possibility of zero values. These are substantive behavioral traits that help an agent interpret results correctly.

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 matching logic, and most sentences carry useful behavioral detail. It is somewhat dense and long, with minor overlap against schema-documented holderTypes behavior, but not bloated.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description supplies enough return-value context: latest report date, tracked 13F position value, position count, entity type, ordering, and valuation caveats. An agent has what it needs to call and interpret this search tool.

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 documents query, maxResults, and holderTypes in detail. The description adds only limited parameter-specific meaning, such as noting that results show entity type and holderTypes filters by it, which is consistent with but not substantially beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search the tracked 13F filer set by institution name or SEC CIK. It also distinguishes this broad search from scoped institution tools, which remain strict and never discard unmatched words, so an agent can tell which tool category fits.

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 explains that search first requires all punctuation-independent query words to match, then broadens only when no strict row matches, and it suggests comparing same-name filers before calling an institution tool. It names the alternative category, scoped institution tools, but does not explicitly list when not to use this tool.

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