report_largest_shareholders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint (true) and openWorldHint (true), which inform the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it inquires status, consistent with annotations, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 sentence that is concise and understandable. However, it is extremely short and could be expanded to include usage guidance without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown), so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the complexity of sibling tools and the lack of usage differentiation, the description is minimally complete. It fulfills basic needs but leaves gaps for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool over others.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 inquires about the largest shareholder status, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'report_largest_shareholder_changes' which likely covers changes over time. The verb '조회합니다' is specific enough for a single tool but could be more precise.

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 vs alternatives. There is a sibling 'report_largest_shareholder_changes' that may be intended for historical changes, but the description does not mention such distinctions or provide any usage context.

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