Shareholders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is clearly safe. The description adds that it returns a structured list of shareholders, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or sorting order.

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 extremely concise at two sentences (20 words) without any redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists, annotations cover behavior), the description is largely complete. It explains the return fields and the purpose. However, it omits any mention of potential limitations like maximum number of shareholders returned, which could be useful but is not critical.

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 100% and the single parameter 'symbol' is well-described in the schema. The description reinforces the 'symbol' parameter but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Get institutional shareholders for a symbol' and specifies the return fields. It is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'shareholder_detail' and 'shareholder_top' by focusing on institutional shareholders in a list format.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving institutional shareholders, but lacks exclusions or comparisons to similar tools, such as when to use 'shareholder_detail' for more information.

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