get_large_holding_report

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

As a read operation, the description implies no destructive behavior. However, without annotations, it does not disclose any potential limitations, permissions, or side effects. It provides basic transparency but lacks detail.

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 with two sentences and a parameter line. Every part is necessary and there is no redundant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains what the report contains (holdings of major shareholders >=5%), but lacks details on the return format or additional fields. It is sufficient for a simple list tool but could be more comprehensive.

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?

The description adds value by specifying that corp_code is an 8-digit DART company unique number and indicates it is required. Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, this addition is crucial and well-presented.

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 it retrieves a large holding report and specifically mentions it shows holdings of major shareholders with 5% or more shares. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_largest_shareholder or get_minority_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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