search_shareholders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that the operation is a lookup/search of filing relationships, but it does not mention pagination, default result count, or any output structure. Core behavior is present; depth is minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core action in the first sentence and the key differentiator in the second. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Simple 2-parameter tool with fully documented schema and a clear relationship to its sibling. The description covers the main concept and reverse relationship; only a return-shape note would make it fully complete, but this is a minor gap.

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%, with q and limit already documented including example and default. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Look up'), the resource (investor by name), and the outcome (every listed company with a large-shareholding filing). It also names the sibling it is the reverse of, so it is immediately distinguishable from get_shareholders.

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 frames the tool as the reverse of get_shareholders and tells the agent to start from the holder rather than the issuer. This is a clear when-to-use signal and references the main alternative.

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