A tracked manager's 13F portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clarifies that it returns the latest portfolio and the fields included, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data ordering/pagination. Since it's a simple retrieval, the lack of explicit read-only declaration is acceptable but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise, two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately provide concrete examples and expected output. No fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, straightforward return), the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what to expect in the response (positions with value, shares, share of portfolio). It could mention ordering or error conditions, but these are minor for a lookup tool. The overall completeness is good but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema already provides a description for the single slug parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats the example and adds context about tracked managers, but does not introduce new semantic details beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description offers marginal additional value.

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 states exactly what the tool does: retrieves the latest 13F portfolio for a specific tracked manager identified by slug. It provides concrete examples (berkshire-hathaway, bridgewater) and specifies the output content (positions with value, shares, and share of portfolio), making its purpose unmistakable. It also differentiates from siblings like fund_holders or large_holders by focusing on tracked managers.

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 usage for well-known tracked managers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fund_holders or large_holders. There is no mention of when not to use it or preferred scenarios. The examples hint at the intended audience but leave routing to the agent's inference.

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