report_largest_shareholder_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which inform the agent of safe read-only behavior and possible continuation. The description adds the nature of the data (changes) but does not elaborate on further behavioral traits like pagination or data freshness. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is adequate.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. It is appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the brief description could be more helpful by explaining what constitutes a 'change' (e.g., compared to previous reporting period). It is minimally complete but could be improved.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all three parameters with their meaning and format. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 Korean description '최대주주 변동 현황을 조회합니다.' clearly states the tool retrieves changes in the largest shareholder. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling like 'report_largest_shareholders' which would be a snapshot. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as 'report_largest_shareholders' or 'report_stock_changes'. There is no description of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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