Get Top Institutions by AUM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no additional safety disclosure needed. Description adds behavioral context: searches across all companies, ranks by AUM, optionally filters by minimum AUM. Does not mention pagination or return format, but output schema exists (not shown) to cover that.

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, well-structured. The first sentence fronts the core purpose and scope. The second sentence adds differentiation and optional feature. Very little redundancy, though could be slightly more 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 simple tool with 3 optional parameters, readOnlyHint annotations, and output schema present, the description adequately covers key aspects (purpose, scope, differentiation, optional filter). Satisfies completeness for this level of complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% (all three parameters documented). The description adds a brief mention of minimum AUM but no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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?

Clearly states 'Discover top institutional holders across the entire company universe ranked by assets under management (AUM)' with a specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool get_ownership by noting the scope difference (across all companies vs. single company).

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use this tool compared to get_ownership (single company vs. all companies). Mentions optional parameter (minimum AUM) and practical use case ('identifying smart money flows'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements but sufficiently guides selection.

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