get_manager_holdings

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It highlights that this is research-only data and warns about intent inference, which adds useful context, but does not discuss mutation side effects, rate limits, or data freshness implications.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, and is moderately concise. The first sentence adds critical context about the tool's limitations, though the return example is somewhat verbose.

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 low complexity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context including a clear return example and usage caveats. No output schema exists, so the return format description is valuable.

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 both parameters. The description provides the exact format for cik (zero-padded 10-digit) and a quarter example, but adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 returns disclosed institutional positions for a 13F filer in a given quarter, distinguishing it from siblings like find_similar_managers and get_consensus_portfolio.

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 notes 'Research data only' and warns against inferring intent, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_manager_holdings_bulk or get_consensus_portfolio.

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