ownership_snapshot

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details: it returns percent_of_class for top holders, director/officer counts, and verified >=50% control edges. It also discloses abstention when the company can't be resolved, which is 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value. No redundant information or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the key inputs and outputs. It explains the data included, the abstention condition, and the read-only nature. Minor gaps remain around top_n semantics, but the overview is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions top holders and company context, but does not explicitly define top_n or company parameters. The mapping is implied but not stated, leaving some ambiguity about the exact meaning of top_n (e.g., number of holders vs. threshold).

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 provides supporting ownership context for one issuer, listing specific components (top holders, board size, control status). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as grounding the headline chain/path/coalition answers, which are likely from other tools.

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 implies usage as supplementary context for chain/path/coalition investigations, and it mentions abstention if the company cannot be resolved, which is a clear condition. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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