get_shareholders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns shareholder count trends, top 10 circulating shareholders, and institutional holdings, and restricts to A-shares. This gives basic insight into data scope and content. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or that it is read-only (though that is implied). The description adds some behavioral context but is not thorough.

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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first, followed by the Args section for parameters. It is two short lines of Chinese plus an argument list. Nothing is redundant, and the structure is clear. It could arguably be slightly more polished but is efficient and well-organized.

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 that an output schema exists (though its content is not shown here), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, scope (A-shares only), and parameters with meaning. The only minor gap is that it does not mention any pagination or limits beyond top_n, but that is likely covered elsewhere. For a data-retrieval tool, this is fairly 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'symbol' is explained as the stock code, and 'top_n' is described as the number of top circulating shareholders to display, with a max of 20. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default. Both parameters are given usable semantics, making the description a strong compensator for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: shareholder structure, including shareholder count trends, top 10 circulating shareholders, and institutional holdings (fund/social security/QFII). It is specific and distinct from siblings like get_quote or get_financial_statement, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It also mentions the A-share-only constraint, narrowing scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or link to sibling tools. The only hint is the 'A-shares only' constraint, which implicitly limits usage but does not help an agent decide between this and other shareholder-related tools (if any). Sibling tools like get_company_profile or get_financial_statement might overlap, but no comparison is offered.

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