get_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. It discloses that the tool returns four sections but does not mention read-only nature, permissions, or potential side effects. The transparency is adequate for a retrieval tool but not detailed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a main sentence and a parenthetical. Every part is informative and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the main purpose, usage guidance, and key parameter behavior. It could mention the combined response structure, but for a tool with four sections it is fairly 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 coverage is 50%. The description adds value by explaining the 'sections' parameter defaults and listing the four sections in Korean, mapping to enum values. However, it does not clarify the 'corp', 'year', or 'report' parameters beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 with partial compensation.

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 tool's purpose as a governance structure snapshot aggregating four specific sections. It uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('composite query') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_periodic_report by indicating it does a combined query.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for composite query of all four sections) and when to use an alternative (get_periodic_report for a single section). This provides clear usage guidance.

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