get_substantial_holder_notices

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses that the tool is read-only and returns extracted data with details like holder names, percentages, and direction. It mentions the data source (NZX SHINTR announcements) and scale (9,700+ notices), but does not address authentication or rate limits.

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 relatively concise with a clear purpose statement upfront, but contains a minor inconsistency by repeatedly referring to 'substantial product holder notices' instead of 'substantial holder notices'. This could cause confusion.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return data (holder names, percentages, direction, fund manager matching). It mentions the scale and input parameters. However, it does not specify pagination behavior or whether results are limited to recent notices.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds context through example values and use cases, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema definitions. 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 the tool retrieves classified substantial holder notices for an NZX company, listing specific output fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a niche financial data type (SPH notices) not covered by other tools.

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 provides explicit example queries (e.g., 'substantial holders of [ticker]', 'who increased holdings') indicating when to use the tool. However, it lacks negative guidance or comparisons to alternative tools, which could improve clarity.

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