ownership_block

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: data source (occasional disclosures), time series by reporter, purpose parsing from original text, and sum of reporter and special relations. It does not mention auth or rate limits but sufficiently describes behavior for an information retrieval tool.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (desc, when, rule, ref, Args). It is concise yet comprehensive, with every sentence adding value. Front-loads purpose and key usage.

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 complexity (2 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral rules, parameter semantics, and related tools. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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%, but the tool description provides clear meanings for both parameters: ticker is 'stock code or company name' and format is 'md (default) or json'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 reports on 5% major holdings, share changes, stock accumulation, detects holding purpose and changes, and provides timeline for management disputes. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing related tools like ownership_major and proxy_fight.

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 explicitly lists when to use (e.g., share changes, 5% reporting, management disputes) and mentions independent call capability. It suggests combining with proxy_fight for full picture and references alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when not to use.

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