shareholder_commitment

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it combines data from value_up, corp_gov_report, dividend, and treasury_share; it computes a book-value-based P&L by comparing actual treasury share buy price against BPS; it explicitly states it does not assess intrinsic value; it uses a sanity filter for false positives and notes a known data issue (treasury_share _link_cycles bug fix).

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 moderately verbose but front-loads key purpose and usage information. Each sentence adds value, covering purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. Minor improvement could be structuring parameter details more clearly.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides comprehensive context: it explains the tool's rationale, distinguishes from siblings, details data sources and calculations, addresses data quality, and covers usage. The description is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains lookback_years (period, default 3) but does not clarify the 'company' parameter (e.g., identifier format) or the 'format' parameter (default 'md'). While the description adds some value, it leaves two of three parameters partially explained.

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's purpose: tracking whether a company has fulfilled its commitments (value-up plans, dividends, treasury share actions) on an ongoing basis. It contrasts with proxy_advise_before_meeting, which is one-time at AGM, thereby distinguishing its role.

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 provides usage context: stewardship engagement, institutional investor interactions, annual portfolio reviews, and answering 'did the company keep its promise?'. It also explains when not to use the sibling tool proxy_advise_before_meeting, offering clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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