insiders_ownership

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get major holders breakdown'—nothing about output format, granularity, historical vs current data, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a data-lookup tool with no annotation support.

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 short but severely under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks the minimal detail needed to justify its brevity effectively, so it fails to earn its place as useful guidance.

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 tool's simple schema and lack of annotations, the description should at least clarify what 'major holders' means and how this tool relates to the broader insiders_* family. It does neither, leaving the agent without adequate context 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?

The schema covers the only parameter, 'ticker', with a clear description ('Stock ticker'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. Per the rubric, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline stands.

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 includes a verb ('Get') and a resource ('major holders breakdown'), so it states the general purpose. However, 'major holders' is ambiguous—it doesn't specify whether these are insiders, institutions, or individuals—and it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like insiders_institutions or insiders_individuals. The name hints at insider ownership, but the description itself is imprecise.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related insider/sibling tools. The description does not mention any alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based only on the name.

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