shareholding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is a historical time series broken out by holder category, which is modest but real added context; it does not say how far back history goes or how many periods are returned.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the resource and holder categories; there is essentially no filler. The terseness borders on cryptic ('period: quarterly | yearly' as a standalone clause) but nothing is wasted.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but with no output schema the description should still indicate what a record contains and whether the series is returned as a list over time. As written, an agent can guess the call but not the shape of results or the depth of history.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It supplies the two accepted values for `period` (quarterly | yearly), which the schema lacks (no enum), but says nothing about `symbol` format or about period defaulting to quarterly, leaving half the semantics to guesswork.

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?

Names a specific resource — shareholding history across promoter/FII/DII/government/public categories — which is clearly distinct from siblings like financial_statement or company_overview. The verb is only implied ('history'), so it stops short of a fully explicit purpose statement.

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 versus company_overview, company_snapshot, or financial_statement, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a valid symbol/company must exist). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the resource name.

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