get_shareholding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the data retrieved (10-quarter breakdown) but does not disclose any behavioral traits: e.g., whether it is read-only, requires authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks transparency.

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 sentence that effectively front-loads the key information (10-quarter breakdown). It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured to add more detail without losing 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 the low parameter coverage (0%), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the slug parameter, what the output structure looks like, or any constraints (e.g., data availability for certain companies). The minimal information is insufficient for reliable tool usage.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the single parameter 'slug'. However, it does not define what 'slug' represents (likely a company identifier) or how to obtain it. The agents are left to guess its meaning, which is a critical 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 retrieves a 10-quarter shareholding breakdown with specific categories (promoter, FII, DII, public). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource '10-quarter shareholding breakdown', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_financials or get_company_overview.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or comparisons to siblings such as get_company_overview or get_fund_flow. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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