ownership

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context such as 'largest holders' and 'change since the prior filing', but it does not mention data source, sort order, staleness, or behavior for invalid/missing symbols. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded and the returned fields listed cleanly after a colon. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 description gives a useful summary of the returned data, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it omits the response envelope, limit behavior, sorting, and data freshness caveats, so an agent may still be uncertain about exact call results. It is adequate for a basic lookup but not fully self-contained.

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 clarify parameter meaning. It clarifies that symbol is a single symbol, but it never explains limit semantics, symbol format, or how results are ordered. Two parameters exist and the description only weakly compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names the specific resource (institutional ownership) and the exact data returned: largest holders with shares, value, portfolio weight, and change since the prior filing. 'For one symbol' narrows the scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like insider_activity or fund_profile.

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 phrase 'for one symbol' implies this is for single-ticker institutional ownership lookups, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Usage context is present but only by implication.

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