get_holder_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions request_type codes but does not explain whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what the response contains. The default num=10 is implied but not explicitly stated as a limit.

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 short and compact, fitting in one line plus a note. The bilingual section may add redundancy but does not waste space. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separate param descriptions).

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 few annotations, the description should provide more details on return format, error handling, or use cases. It only covers basic purpose and one parameter's range, leaving gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains request_type (0=default, 1000=all) and hints that num controls the count. However, the required 'code' parameter is not explained, and 'num' semantics are not fully clarified. Some value added, but incomplete.

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 the tool provides top-10/detailed shareholders, with bilingual naming. It clearly indicates the resource (shareholders) and action (get details). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_shareholder_overview or get_institutional_holdings, which might overlap.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or context for when it is appropriate. The description only gives request_type values but not usage scenarios.

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