get_fund_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by revealing response fields (share counts, market values, 13F report_quarter, filed_at) and the input method, but the claim of accepting CIK contradicts the schema, creating confusion. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or side effects, though as a read operation the safety profile is implied.

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 filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes useful details efficiently. The minor CIK inconsistency does not detract from conciseness.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return value structure. However, with four parameters and zero schema descriptions, the tool description leaves limit, quarter, and position_type undefined. The CIK discrepancy further reduces completeness, making the description adequate but not fully informative.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies fund_name (and mentions CIK, though not a schema parameter) but does not explain limit, quarter, or position_type. The quarter parameter is only indirectly hinted by the response field report_quarter, but no explicit semantics are provided.

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 retrieves a fund's portfolio holdings, with specific details about share counts and market values. It distinguishes from siblings like get_institutional_holders, which likely returns holders of a security, but a minor inconsistency ('Accepts fund name or CIK') is noted since the schema only includes fund_name.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It implies use for fund holdings but offers no comparison to related tools such as get_holding_changes or get_institutional_holders.

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