getFilingExtractAnalyticsByHolder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about analyzing stock movements and strategies, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or data freshness. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the tool's purpose and the second elaborating on the insights. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it could be more concise by avoiding redundant phrasing like 'helps you understand'.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level purpose but lacks details on the response format, such as whether it returns a list of holders or aggregated metrics. Annotations cover safety but not completeness of data 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mentions 'by holder' but does not explain how the parameters affect the breakdown or link to the holder analysis.

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 that this tool provides an analytical breakdown of institutional filings, focusing on stock movements and portfolio changes. It uses specific verbs like 'provides' and 'offers' and distinguishes the resource as 'by holder'. However, it could be more specific about the exact output structure, which is a minor gap.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'institutional holders' but does not explain how this differs from other filing tools like getFilingsBySymbol or getLatestInstitutionalFilings. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of prerequisites.

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