get_major_holder_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the analytical purpose, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., structured data, risk scores, narrative analysis), whether it performs calculations or just retrieves raw data, or any limitations like data freshness or processing time. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with analytical claims.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for conveying the analytical scope while maintaining brevity.

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 tool claiming to perform 'early analysis' of takeover possibilities with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the analysis takes, what data sources are used, or how the analytical conclusions are derived. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more operational context about what the tool actually delivers.

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 only 33% (1 of 3 parameters documented). The description doesn't mention any parameters or provide additional context about what 'corp_code', 'start_date', or 'end_date' mean in relation to the analysis. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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: analyzing major shareholder changes for early detection of management control threats and hostile takeover possibilities. It specifies the threshold (5%+ shareholders) and the analytical goal, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_major_shareholder_changes' which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the analytical purpose but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools (like 'get_major_shareholder' or 'get_major_shareholder_changes') might be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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