ownership_major

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that data is based on business report filings, may differ from actual largest holder, and preferred shares are separately displayed. No destructive or auth info needed for a read 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 structured with clear sections (desc, when, rule, ref, Args) and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, output schema exists, no annotations), the description provides complete context: return type, usage conditions, sibling relationships, and parameter details. Output schema covers return values.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear parameter meanings under 'Args': ticker (stock code or company name), year (business year, default previous year), format (md default or json). This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it shows the status of largest shareholder and related persons' equity holdings based on business reports, specifying common stock basis, equity ratio, and change history. This distinguishes it from siblings like ownership_block and ownership_full_analysis.

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 'when' section explicitly says to use only after ownership_full_analysis and when user requests details on majority shareholder/related persons. It also provides a rule about business report standard vs actual largest holder and references sibling tools.

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