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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data is returned "over time" and "quarter over quarter," a modest behavioral detail, but says nothing about return format, history depth, or latency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its key data categories. The final sentence ("Useful for understanding ownership changes") is largely restatement and could be cut, but there is no bloat overall.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data comes back (promoter/FII/DII/public holdings, quarterly history). It lacks any note on history range or result shape, which would have made it complete.

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 100%, so symbol/ticker/identifier aliases and the type enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely hints at the period dimension ("quarter over quarter") and adds no syntax or alias-resolution detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ("Get shareholding pattern") and enumerates the exact data domains returned: promoter, FII, DII, public. This is far more informative than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling get_stock_ownership, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

Only says it is "useful for understanding ownership changes," which implies a scenario but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. With a nearly synonymous sibling (get_stock_ownership) in the tool list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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