get_holders_institutional

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination, filtering/sorting support, the included response fields, and the empty-response caveat for non-stocks. It doesn't cover return structure or potential error conditions, but the transparency is solid for a read operation.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, included fields, and usage caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no fluff or redundancy.

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 list-returning tool with no output schema, the description provides good coverage: it states the resource, the fields returned, and a key limitation. The complex filter/sort parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description needn't repeat them. Slightly more detail on response structure would make it complete, but it's already strong.

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 all parameters. The description mentions filtering and sorting generically but adds no deeper parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's detailed descriptions. 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?

The description clearly states it returns a paginated list of institutional holders for an asset, including specific fields like position, percent held, and estimated value. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (holders_general, holders_mutual_funds, holders_insiders) by specifying institutional holders and noting the typical empty response for ETFs/mutual funds.

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 explicitly notes that the tool is primarily relevant for stocks and that ETFs/mutual funds typically return empty responses, providing direct when-to-use guidance and an exclusion. However, it doesn't name alternative tools for those cases (e.g., holders_mutual_funds), so it stops short of fully explicit alternatives.

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