get_institutional_ownership

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions combining data types but omits details on caching (use_cache param), rate limits, authentication, error handling, or output structure beyond 'summary' and 'full' formats. This leaves significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence gives the primary purpose, and the second adds relevant detail. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately states what the tool returns but lacks guidelines on when to use it and behavioral details. It is functional but incomplete for an agent needing full context.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about combining holder-level and aggregate data, which relates to the format parameter, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 the tool retrieves institutional ownership analytics for a stock, combining holder-level data with aggregate metrics. It names a specific resource and verb, and its purpose is distinct from siblings like get_etf_holdings or fmp_profile.

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 implies usage for institutional ownership data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_etf_holdings for ETF data). No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, making the guidance minimal.

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