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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: group filings report the largest single stake rather than a sum, share classes are split by CUSIP, legacy SC 13D/13G filings lack percent and are excluded, and holders stop filing after acquisition/delisting. This is exactly the kind of caveat an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and the field inventory are front-loaded, and every clause carries real information (field semantics, filing-form caveats, limits). It is dense and close to a wall of text, which slightly hurts scannability, but little is expendable.

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?

Though an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description goes further by documenting field semantics and legacy/group-filing edge cases, leaving an agent fully equipped to interpret results and avoid misreading the figures.

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 both parameters (ticker, limit) are already documented in the schema and the description adds no further parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (current holders of 5%+ of a stock via Schedule 13D/13G filings), ordering (largest first), and anchors it to a known reference (the Major holders tab on livermore.club). An agent can distinguish it from get_stock_13f_holders or get_ownership_filings, which cover different filing regimes.

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?

Usage context is implied through the described data scope and the pointed 'Call get_data_coverage for the loaded date range' note, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_ownership_filings or get_stock_13f_holders. No when-not or alternative-selection guidance is given.

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