Get Institutional Holders

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with ('Get','Returns'). The description adds return field details (shares, weight, dates) beyond annotations, but no additional behavioral traits like pagination limits or data freshness. Acceptable but not extensive.

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 succinct sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly defines purpose and resource, the second adds return details. Perfectly 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?

Given a simple retrieval tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return values. It lacks mention of pagination or data freshness, but the schema covers parameters and output schema covers returns, so overall 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters (ticker, limit, offset) beyond what the schema provides. No extra context on formatting or behavior.

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 gets institutional holders (13F filers) for a company, specifying the resource, action, and returned data (shares held, portfolio weight, filing dates). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on holders for a specific ticker and mentioning 13F filings.

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 mentions 'useful for understanding institutional ownership concentration,' which implies usage context, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus similar siblings like get_institution_holdings or get_institution_activity. No direct comparisons or when-not-to-use guidance.

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