Get a fund manager's 13F portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: 13F reports include only long US-listed positions, exclude shorts/cash/foreign shares, are filed up to 45 days after quarter end, identify securities by CUSIP, and ignore amendments. This gives the agent important expectations about data scope and reliability.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose and output contents come first, followed by concrete examples, then a consolidated Notes section of caveats. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool returns: positions by value, % of portfolio, shares, and change versus the previous quarter. Combined with the fully documented input schema and domain caveats, an agent has enough to select the tool, choose parameters, and interpret results correctly.

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 each parameter is already explained in the schema. The description reinforces the manager concept with examples and mentions the 45-day filing lag relevant to period, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. 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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a particular resource: the US equity portfolio reported on Form 13F by investment managers. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like edgar_get_insider_trades or market_get_stock_price by focusing on quarterly institutional holdings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it works for hedge funds, mutual fund families, banks, insurers, and accepts a manager name or CIK. It also explains limitations such as long-only US positions and the 45-day filing lag. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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