Top 20 Shareholders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the return structure's periodicity and nested fields, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, limits) beyond what annotations cover.

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 two sentences: the first defines purpose and return data, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant information, well front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

The description includes the full return structure, compensating for the lack of an output schema. For a simple, single-parameter tool with open world hint, this is sufficient. A minor gap: it doesn't specify if 'across reporting periods' means multiple entries or just the latest, but still adequate.

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 sole parameter 'symbol' has full schema description coverage (100%). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's example, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 the tool retrieves the top 20 major shareholders across reporting periods, specifying categories (institutions, individuals, insiders) and the return structure. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like shareholder_detail.

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 explicitly directs to use shareholder_detail with the object_id for deeper drill-down, indicating when to use this summary tool vs. alternative. No exclusions are stated, but context is clear.

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