Get Institution Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating it 'gets' information. The description adds value by detailing the output content (name, AUM, holdings, filing history), which goes beyond the annotation. No behavioral contradictions.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence serves a distinct function: stating the action and providing usage guidance. Perfectly concise.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown but flagged by context signals), the description need not enumerate return fields in detail. It still lists key output fields and explains the prerequisite. For a one-parameter lookup tool, this is mostly complete, though it could mention error handling for invalid CIKs.

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?

The schema describes the 'cik' parameter with a format example, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds extra context ('Use get_institutions first to find the CIK'), which helps the agent understand how to obtain the parameter value. This adds meaning beyond the schema alone.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific institutional investor by their SEC CIK number.' It specifies the verb ('get'), the resource ('detailed information about a specific institutional investor'), and the method ('by their SEC CIK number'). It also lists the returned fields (name, AUM, holdings, filing history), distinguishing it from siblings like get_institutions.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use get_institutions first to find the CIK for an institution.' This helps the agent understand the prerequisite. However, it does not contrast with other institutional detail tools like get_institution_activity, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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