company_shareholders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The one-line description does not mention return format, whether it includes ownership percentage details, whether the data source (VCI vs KBS) affects results, or any rate/access limitations. For a data-retrieval tool, the absence of any behavioral detail is a gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero filler words. It's appropriately minimal; nothing could be trimmed. It could arguably be slightly more verbose to add behavioral detail, but this is conciseness, not under-specification to the point of fragment (as in the process example).

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 a simple 2-parameter read operation with a 100% covered schema and an output schema present, so the completeness bar is moderate. The description is adequate for basic usage but omits clarification on the source parameter's practical difference and the notion of 'major' threshold, which are relevant for correct interpretation of results. It is sufficient, not rich.

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 100%, with both source (VCI/KBS) and symbol (with examples) documented. The source parameter's distinction between VCI and KBS is only minimally explained; the description doesn't clarify that choosing a different source could change which shareholders/reporting basis is shown. However, since the schema fully documents both parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 major shareholders of a company' uses a clear verb (Get) and resource (major shareholders) with a company scoping. It distinguishes well from siblings like company_officers (officers) and company_overview (general company info), though it could be more specific about what 'major' means (e.g., top N holders, ownership percentages).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus company_officers or company_overview, nor are any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing a valid symbol from listing tools). The context that it requires a specific listed symbol is only implied by the parameter schema, not stated in the description.

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