insiders_individuals

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not mention whether it returns a list, any formatting, pagination, or other behavioral characteristics. The description adds no context beyond the core action, which is minimal for a retrieval 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not specify the return format or clarify whether the data is current or historical. Given the cluster of insider-related siblings, a slightly richer description would help disambiguate exact use cases, though the core purpose is clear.

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 schema covers the single parameter `ticker` fully with its description 'Stock ticker', and the description's phrase 'for a ticker' is redundant. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('get'), the resource ('insider holders'), and the specific subset ('individuals'), scoped to a ticker. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like insiders_funds and insiders_institutions, which target different holder types, and insiders_ownership/activity/transactions which cover different aspects of insider data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related insider tools (e.g., insiders_funds, insiders_institutions, insiders_transactions). It only states what it does without explaining selection criteria or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that 'individuals' is the distinguishing factor.

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