get_institutional_holders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the 'major' scoping qualifier and a summary of returned fields that is already captured by the output schema, so it contributes little behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema 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 Args/Returns layout is compact and front-loads the purpose before the field details, with no wasted sentences. It is slightly boilerplate but appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately; the agent need not know return formatting details. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation, which the description never addresses.

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 must carry the parameter meaning. It only expands 'ticker' to 'Stock ticker symbol' with no format, exchange-suffix, or case guidance (e.g., 'AAPL'), which barely improves on the schema's bare 'Ticker' property title.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get major institutional holders and their ownership') with enough precision for an agent to know what comes back. However it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as get_major_holders, get_mutualfund_holders, or get_insider_roster_holders, so the agent must guess which holder-focused tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative holder tools in the sibling set. The agent gets what the tool returns but not when to prefer it over get_major_holders or get_mutualfund_holders.

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