getPositionsSummary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that the data is a filing-period snapshot that varies over time and lists the metric families returned, but it omits the fact that results are scoped to a specific year/quarter filing rather than the latest data, and says nothing about response shape or rate behavior.

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, front-loaded with what the tool is and followed by the metric list. No filler or marketing padding, though the metric enumeration could be trimmed if it were replaced by clearer scoping and usage guidance.

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, the description usefully covers the return values by listing the tracked metrics. What is missing is the filing-period semantics of the three required parameters and any routing guidance among the dense set of ownership-related siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents symbol, year and quarter. The description reinforces that the tool is symbol-scoped and time-varying, but never explains that year and quarter select a specific 13F-style filing period, which is the one piece of parameter meaning the schema's terse labels do not convey.

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 names a specific resource (institutional holdings snapshot for a single stock symbol) and enumerates the metrics returned (investor count, share changes, investment value, ownership percentages). It stops short of distinguishing this from related siblings such as getAcquisitionOwnership, getLatestInstitutionalFilings or getHolderPerformanceSummary, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these ownership tools to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative. The description never says whether this is a point-in-time filing snapshot versus a time series, nor when an agent should prefer it over the many other institutional-ownership tools in the sibling list.

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