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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing a naming trap: pct_total_shares_pledged counts ALL holders' pledged shares, not promoter-only, and points to a `field_notes` field in the response. It still doesn't say how far back 'recent quarters' extends.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by interpretation and a caveat; each earns its place. The trailing reference to `field_notes` is slightly under-specified absent an output schema, but not wasteful.

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 does the work of describing return shape (quarterly pledge %, event list) and warns about a misleading field. What's missing is the lookback window and whether recent events are ordered or limited, which matters for a history tool.

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% with explicit descriptions for symbol and its two aliases, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable but baseline-level given the alias ambiguity (three ways to pass the same 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?

States a specific resource and verb ('Promoter share-pledge history for a stock') and enumerates what comes back: quarterly % of promoter holding pledged plus creation/release events. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_shareholding or get_stock_ownership, though it never names them explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Says high or rising pledges are 'a governance red flag', which implies the use case (governance/risk checks) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no alternative tool is named. Usage must be inferred from the interpretation hint rather than stated.

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