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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what is retrieved but omits whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), any authentication or rate-limit requirements, and what the returned data includes beyond a high-level label.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it is minimal and could benefit from one more sentence of context without harming conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'holdings and trading details' encompasses, nor does it state the prerequisite that the object_id must come from a prior get_shareholders_top call, leaving the agent to infer this from the schema alone.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters, including the prerequisite for object_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is high.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('holdings and trading details'), and scope ('one shareholder object'). It implies differentiation from list-oriented siblings like get_shareholders_top and get_shareholders_latest, but does not name them explicitly.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. While the schema's object_id parameter description mentions a prerequisite (from get_shareholders_top with detail_available=true), the main description itself offers no context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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