Shareholders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behaviors. The description adds only the return structure, but not details like pagination, sorting, or limitations. For a tool with comprehensive annotations, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is already declared.

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 brief at two sentences, with no redundant information. While concise, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from return details), but overall it is efficient.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does and what the return fields are. It lacks information on ordering or default behavior, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 one parameter 'symbol' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or formatting guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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', specifying the verb and resource. The return fields are listed, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'shareholder_detail' or 'shareholder_top', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The agent is left without context for choosing this tool over related siblings.

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