shareholder_major_stock

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and data freshness. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., data source, refresh rate, or permission requirements) beyond 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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No extraneous words, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

The description is too brief for a domain-specific tool. It does not explain what 'major holdings' includes, nor does it differentiate from numerous sibling tools. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving gaps in understanding the return data.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'corp_code'. The tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameter, but the schema already covers it. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no extra semantic value is added.

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 states it inquires about major holdings status, which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not specify what aspect of major holdings (e.g., current holdings, changes, or percentages), making it somewhat vague compared to sibling tools like 'report_largest_shareholder_changes' or 'report_largest_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 such as 'shareholder_executive_stock' or 'report_largest_shareholders'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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