get_holders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval with no mutation, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or whether the result is restricted by the limit parameter. This is adequate for a simple read tool, but not rich.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. No filler words or redundant restatements of the name.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a crowded sibling list, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what differentiates institutional holders from fund holders, does not explain the effect of limit or return behavior, and provides no context for when this endpoint is appropriate.

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 50%: symbol is documented and limit has default/min/max constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the tool purpose, which makes 'limit' inferable as holder-count limiting. This is at the acceptable baseline but no more.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('institutional holders and ownership data'), so an agent understands the primary function. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_fund_holders or get_holder_breakdown, which weakens clarity.

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 given for when to use this tool over alternatives. The description is purely declarative and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools such as get_fund_holders, leaving call selection to inference.

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