Get Institution Position Changes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so description adds value by explaining the server-side computation and sorting behavior (by |changePercent| descending). No contradictions. Minor omission: no mention of what happens if no prior filing exists.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second explains efficiency and sorting. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with action verb.

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 that an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers purpose, efficiency, and sorting. However, it could mention handling of missing prior filings or date boundaries. Still strong for a read-only tool with good annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context but does not elaborate on parameters beyond the example in cik description. It mentions sorting but not parameter constraints (limit/offset). Adequate but not exceptional.

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 uses a specific verb ('Diff') and clearly identifies the resource (two quarterly 13F snapshots for an institution) and the output (per-position changes: new, increased, decreased, exited). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_institution_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 explicitly states when to use: for comparing latest filing to prior quarter. It also provides an alternative ('get_institution_holdings twice and diffing client-side') and explains why this tool is better (efficiency). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but still clear.

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