get_largest_shareholders

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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden, but 'get' and the periodic-report framing imply a read-only retrieval operation. It discloses the data content and temporal scope (start and end of period), but does not discuss permissions, limitations, or response behavior beyond what the output schema may cover.

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 short sentences with the core resource and temporal scope front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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 output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description. However, for a three-parameter tool with no annotation or schema parameter documentation, the description is incomplete because it does not explain parameter usage or clarify sibling-tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the company, year, or period parameters. It mentions 'periodic report' and 'start and end of the period,' which weakly relates to the period parameter, but required company and year semantics remain undocumented.

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 identifies the resource as largest shareholder and related-party stakes from a periodic report, including the Korean term. It distinguishes the data from broad company search or filing retrieval, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_major_shareholder_changes.

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?

Usage is implied by 'as of a periodic report' and the focus on chaebol control structure, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_major_shareholder_changes, get_insider_trades, or get_company_profile. The agent must infer the appropriate selection context.

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