get_executive_ownership_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It meaningfully explains that DART returns the full filing history in one call with no native date parameter, so date filtering and result limiting are applied after fetching. It also warns that large-cap companies can have thousands of filings and that the default limit prevents returning all of them at once.

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 longer than average, but the length is earned. The purpose is front-loaded, the Args section is consistently structured, and the extra explanation about post-fetch filtering and default limits is essential behavioral context rather than filler.

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 provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: the underlying data source, the behavior around date filtering, all parameter semantics, and the reason for the limit. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary, and no critical invocation detail is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so thoroughly: corp_code is explained with a concrete example, start_date and end_date get accepted formats and default behavior, and limit gets a default, a maximum, and ordering information. Every parameter is meaningfully documented beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a clear verb-object statement: 'Get executive/major-shareholder stock ownership reports' and then defines the specific resource: filings by executives and major (10%+) shareholders whenever holdings change. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the many shareholder-related sibling tools, even without naming each alternative.

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 establishes clear usage context by explaining that this endpoint covers frequent routine insider-ownership filings and therefore defaults to a three-month window. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the described behavior gives an agent enough context to choose it appropriately.

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