get_shareholders

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: resolution strategy (exact→fuzzy→phonetic), ambiguity handling (returns suggestions), extraction method (coordinate-aware parser and text heuristic), confidence reporting, and fallback behavior (raw_text and PDF path on low confidence). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by layered details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value and context, making it informative without being verbose.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers input semantics, multiple extraction methods, confidence handling, and output field list. It anticipates edge cases (ambiguous names, low confidence) and provides fallback instructions, leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'company' is the company name to resolve, and 'which' accepts 'latest' (default) or 'oldest'. It explains the resolution process for company. However, it does not specify that 'which' is limited to those two values, nor does it provide format guidance for the company name.

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 starts with a precise verb-resource pair ('Retrieve a company's shareholders') and specifies the output format ('structured table'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that shareholders are NOT in the register extract for a GmbH/UG, implying this tool is the authoritative source and different from get_company.

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?

The description provides guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Shareholders are NOT in the register extract for a GmbH/UG — this filed list is the authoritative source') and explains the resolution process for company names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to closely related siblings like fetch_filed_document.

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