get_executive_ownership_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the endpoint returns the full filing history, that date filtering and limits are applied client-side, and that large-cap companies may have thousands of filings. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or auth prerequisites, but it is unusually transparent for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and behavior, then organized into an Args block. Every sentence earns its place: endpoint behavior, default-date rationale, large-data warning, and parameter details are all relevant. No filler or redundancy.

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 is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly: all parameters are defined, defaults are explained, and the output schema covers return values. It lacks an explicit API-key prerequisite and alternative-tool routing, but those are minor relative to the strong invocation guidance provided.

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 input schema provides no descriptions, so the description fully compensates. It explains corp_code with an example, date formats and default behaviors for start_date and end_date, and limit semantics including default, maximum, and ordering behavior. This goes well beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 a specific resource: executive/major-shareholder stock ownership reports, with a concrete verb and endpoint context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_major_shareholder_status, get_major_shareholder_changes, or get_major_holding_reports, which appear to overlap in subject matter.

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 gives strong context about what the endpoint covers and when filings occur ('whenever their holdings change'), so usage is implied. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternates or when not to use it, which is a notable gap given the many similar sibling tools.

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