uw_institutions

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover safety. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond action names, and contradicts the schema by implying parameters.

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 concise but the contradiction with the schema undermines its value. Front-loading is acceptable but misleading.

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 and a schema with zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the action (e.g., missing action parameter), leaving critical gaps.

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 has zero parameters, but description says actions like holdings require 'name'. This contradicts the schema, adding misleading semantics. Schema coverage is 100% but description does not align.

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 it accesses institutional holdings and ownership data, and lists available actions. However, the input schema has no parameters, while the description implies required parameters for actions (e.g., name, ticker), creating confusion about how to invoke the tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like uw_insider or uw_stock. The list of actions lacks context for selection.

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