get_holders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a summary plus top holders, and that it returns empty results for non-equity asset types. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is substantial behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by critical usage constraints and expected output. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or redundancy. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 description effectively covers the tool's purpose, input constraints, output contents, and scope limitations. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not required in the text. It might mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple read-only tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'per list' for limit and the native ticker requirement), but the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the ISIN/WKN warning and the 'search' resolution step. The description adds little beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Get the ownership breakdown for a Yahoo symbol,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_insider_activity, get_shares, and get_quote. It further details what is returned (insider/institutional percentages, top institutional and mutual-fund holders), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit usage guidance: symbol must be a native ticker, never an ISIN/WKN/company name, and it directs users to 'search' first for non-ticker inputs. It also states when NOT to use the tool: 'Equity-only; empty for ETFs, funds, and crypto,' giving clear exclusions and an alternative tool.

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