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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is low; the description still adds substantive semantics beyond them. It discloses ordering (newest first), the `listed: false` convention for quarters on file where the holder is unnamed, that missing quarters are simply absent rather than null, and that promoter/public migrations produce duplicate rows in a quarter.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core scope and ordering front-loaded. No filler and no restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-shape disclosure and does it well: row granularity, ordering, the listed/absent distinction, and the duplicate-row edge case. Combined with full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the ticker/identifier aliases for `symbol`. The description adds only the provenance of `holder` (an investor_id from get_named_holders) and server-side name normalization; the `symbol`/alias parameters are never mentioned, so it stays at the baseline.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with tight scope: one holder, one stock, every quarter on file, newest first. That scope is enough to separate it in practice from get_named_holders, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling or with get_named_holder_changes (deltas vs. full series), leaving the differentiation implicit.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite workflow by stating that `holder` should be an investor_id from get_named_holders, which tells an agent how to source the input. It does not state when to prefer this over get_named_holders or get_named_holder_changes, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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