get_shareholder_count

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds 'history' implying time-series data, which is consistent but not disclosing additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 concise, with a clear main sentence, a separate strategy hint, and an example. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (1 param), annotations, and presence of output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on what the history data includes (e.g., dates, count breakdowns).

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?

The description repeats the schema with 'symbol: Security symbol', adding no extra meaning. With 0% schema description coverage and only one common parameter, the description provides no added value beyond the schema.

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 'Get shareholder count history' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (shareholder count history). The strategy tag adds context. While the name alone is clear, no explicit differentiation from siblings like get_shareholder_top.

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 <strategy> tag gives a use case: 'track retail vs institutional concentration trends.' This provides some guidance on when to use, but there is no mention of when not to use or alternatives.

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