getHolderIndustryBreakdown

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior, so the description need not repeat safety details. Beyond that, the description adds mostly marketing framing and does not disclose data granularity, historical coverage, pagination, or how 'changes over time' is represented.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, but the second sentence largely restates the first with generic 'helps analyze' language. It is not bloated, but it contains redundancy rather than useful specification.

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 three-required-parameter institutional-holdings tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete: it never explains the roles of cik, year, and quarter or what the returned breakdown contains. It is enough to guess the general domain but not enough to confidently invoke the 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 cik, year, and quarter. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify whether CIK identifies the holder, the issuer, or the fund.

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 clear resource and domain: sectors and industries in which institutional holders invest, plus distribution and change over time. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as getPositionsSummary or getIndustryPerformanceSummary, and 'overview' is somewhat vague.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions for choosing this tool over industry-performance or positions-summary siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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