ownership_full_analysis

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses aggregation of two data sources, specific output format (4-column markdown table), forbids charts/visualizations, and states the tool alone completes the analysis. Missing potential details on permissions or side effects, but coverage is good.

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?

Description is structured into clear sections (desc, when, rule, args) and is front-loaded with core purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though a bit lengthy for the information density; still earns a high score.

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 tool complexity (aggregating multiple data sources, outputting formatted table), description covers all necessary aspects: output format, usage rules, related tools, and required parameters. Output schema existence reduces need to explain return values, and description already specifies the table structure.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds meaning: clarifies ticker can be code or company name, format can be 'md' or 'json' with default 'md'. This compensates for the bare schema, providing useful context beyond titles and defaults.

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?

Description clearly states the tool does a comprehensive analysis of ownership structure, comparing business report and latest filing data, and outputs a 4-column markdown table. It explicitly lists use cases such as analyzing major shareholders, governance, etc., and distinguishes from siblings like ownership_major and ownership_block.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: for analyzing ownership structures, and conditionally advises calling proxy_fight in management dispute contexts. Also instructs not to call individual ownership tools unless explicitly requested, offering clear guidance on alternative tools.

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