institution_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool is a read operation returning positions, shares, and values, but does not disclose potential limitations like data freshness, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but could be more exhaustive.

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 very concise: one sentence summarizing purpose, then two examples. No redundant text, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema so description partially explains return fields (positions, shares, market values), but omits full structure, pagination, or error behavior. Acceptable for a simple list tool but not fully complete.

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 75% (all parameters described). The description adds examples and clarifies defaults (limit=25, sort='value', quarter=latest), but does not significantly extend schema meaning. Baseline of 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 clearly states it retrieves an institutional investor's 13F portfolio holdings for a given quarter, specifying the data returned (positions, share counts, market values) and the required CIK. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like search_institutions or analyze_filing.

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 explicitly requires institution CIK and provides examples of usage. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with alternatives, though the examples and resource specificity imply its context clearly.

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