get_shareholder_overview

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details such as data returned, safety, or authorization needs. It only restates the tool's purpose minimally.

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 very short (one sentence with Chinese synonyms), which is concise but lacks structure. It provides no additional context beyond the name.

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?

With two parameters and no output schema, the description fails to complete the picture. The tool's complexity is low, but the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without external documentation.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'code' and 'period_id'. Their meaning and usage are completely undocumented, forcing reliance on external knowledge.

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 'Shareholding structure summary' with bilingual synonyms, indicating it provides an overview of shareholding. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_holder_detail or get_institutional_holdings, leaving some ambiguity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to holdings, the description lacks any context about preferred use cases or exclusions.

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