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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the data categories and gives usage triggers, but does not mention that this is a read-only lookup, any code format requirements, data freshness, or error behavior. This is minimal beyond the purpose statement.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's scope (shareholder research) and then supplies immediate usage triggers. Every clause adds value; no waste.

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 that an output schema exists and only one parameter is required, the description is mostly sufficient. The missing documentation of the 'code' parameter is the main gap, along with no explicit statement about the expected code format. These omissions prevent full completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the sole 'code' parameter is completely undocumented. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to clarify that 'code' refers to an A-share ticker. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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's purpose: shareholder research covering top ten shareholders, shareholder count, and institutional holdings. It also provides specific user-intent triggers ('who holds', 'shareholder changes', 'chips') that distinguish it from sibling tools like ashare_quote or ashare_finance.

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 explicitly tells agents to use this tool when users ask about 'who holds', 'shareholder changes', or 'chips'. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the trigger-phrase guidance makes the usage context clear.

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