Insider Ownership Summary

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds rich behavioral context: data source (SEC Form 3/4/5), computation methodology (closing balance per security, actual shares only, excluded derivatives, restated to today's split basis), caveats about indirect understatement and stale/zero former insiders, and the default maxResults limit. This significantly exceeds what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded and well-structured, moving from purpose to methodology to caveats to usage. However, it is somewhat verbose—some sentences (e.g., the detailed explanation of indirect understatement) could be tightened without losing essential meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It covers the key output aspects (ranked by total shares held, Direct and Indirect columns, maxResults limit) but does not specify other returned fields like insider names or relationships. This is largely adequate for a summary tool, though slightly incomplete.

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 all parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description mentions maxResults default 30 but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (insider ownership summary for a stock), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling GetInsiderTransactions by saying to use that for underlying trades. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and when to pick it over the alternative.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to understand the insider ownership structure of a company; use GetInsiderTransactions for the underlying trades.' This provides both the intended use case and a clear alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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