Get Comprehensive Ownership

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds behavioral details: pagination via limit/offset (default 100), and that aggregate stats are always included. This goes beyond the annotation to inform the agent about output structure and pagination behavior.

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 redundancy. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second provides essential pagination and output details. Every sentence adds value, making it both efficient and informative.

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 existence of an output schema and the complexity of aggregating multiple SEC form types, the description covers key aspects: data sources, counterparty resolution, pagination behavior, and aggregate stats. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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%, but the description adds context: it explains that limit and offset control pagination for the allHolders array, with default 100 and max 100 for limit. This clarifies the parameters' purpose beyond the schema's type and constraints.

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 provides a unified ownership breakdown combining Form 4, 13F, and 13D/13G holdings. It specifies the resource ('ownership breakdown for a company') and scope ('comprehensive'), effectively differentiating it from siblings that focus on individual form types.

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 implies use for a consolidated view of ownership data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative siblings like get_institution_holdings. It provides clear context for its role as an aggregator, but lacks explicit 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.