get_major_holders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and freshness semantics are covered. The description adds only that the result is a summary spanning institutions, insiders, and public float, with no note on data currency, provider source, or whether percentages are of total shares outstanding.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by compact Args/Returns blocks — easy to scan with no filler. The Args line is near-redundant given the one obvious parameter, 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described in depth, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. What is missing is differentiation from the several other holder-related tools in the sibling list, which is the main thing an agent needs to choose correctly here.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of meaning, and it clarifies the parameter as a 'Stock ticker symbol' rather than the bare property title 'Ticker'. That is a modest but real addition for a self-evident parameter.

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 holders summary') and parenthetically enumerates the breakdown (institutions, insiders, public float), so the scope is clear. However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_institutional_holders, get_insider_roster_holders, or get_mutualfund_holders, which an agent could easily confuse with this summary view.

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 alternative tools for deeper ownership detail despite at least three overlapping holder siblings. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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