Get Institution Detail

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, stating it returns detailed information without suggesting side effects. It adds context about the specific data returned (name, AUM, holdings, filing history), which is helpful beyond the annotation. No contradictions, and the behavioral profile is complete for a read-only detail lookup.

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 only two sentences: one covering purpose and returns, one covering usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous content. Every sentence serves a clear function, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the retrieval purpose. It mentions the return fields. It could optionally note that invalid CIKs may raise errors, but this is not critical for a well-defined schema. Overall, it is complete enough for a detail lookup tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'cik' with a description. The tool description adds value by giving an example ('0001067983' for Berkshire Hathaway) and explaining the parameter's purpose in context, which aids correct invocation.

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 specifies the action ('get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific institutional investor by their SEC CIK number'). It lists the returned fields (name, total AUM, number of holdings, filing history), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_institutions or get_institution_activity by focusing on detail retrieval via CIK.

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 directs users to 'Use get_institutions first to find the CIK for an institution,' providing a clear prerequisite and alternative tool. This helps agents select the appropriate tool in a workflow. Slightly downscored because it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool.

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