get_beneficial_ownership

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool reveals fund manager positions, custodian mappings, and fund holdings, and mentions tracking 56 fund managers. Lacks details on latency, pagination, or data freshness, but adequately describes what the tool does.

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?

Four sentences with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, mechanism, return data, coverage, and example queries. No unnecessary text.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description outlines return data types and examples. It covers key operational details but omits data source recency and limitations. Adequate for a simple-parameter tool.

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 covers the single parameter (ticker) with a description. The tool description does not add further meaning to the ticker parameter beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states it provides beneficial ownership intelligence for NZX companies, with specific details on identifying fund managers behind custodian nominees. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_substantial_holder_notices by focusing on beneficial ownership.

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?

Provides explicit example use cases (e.g., 'who owns [company]?') that guide appropriate invocation. Does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the specificity makes usage clear.

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