get_major_holding_reports

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains that the underlying endpoint returns full filing history in one call without a date parameter, and that date filtering and result limiting are applied after fetching. It also documents the 365-day default behavior. Full pagination, rate-limit, or failure behavior are not covered, but the key post-fetch processing trait is disclosed.

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 the purpose and then organized into a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value: the endpoint behavior, the default date range, the rationale for that default, and the parameter formats. There is 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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. The description covers purpose, endpoint behavior, defaults, and most parameter semantics. It is slightly incomplete because the 'limit' parameter is not documented and no explicit alternation guidance is provided against sibling shareholder reporting tools, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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. It explains corp_code with an example, and start_date/end_date with format and default semantics. However, the 'limit' parameter, which appears in the schema, is never described even though the prose mentions 'result limit'. This omission leaves one of four parameters undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get 5%-rule major shareholding disclosure reports', further clarified by the Korean term and the reference to the Open DART endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_major_shareholder_status by focusing on the 5%-rule disclosure reporting concept.

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 clear context: it applies when an investor's holding crosses a disclosure threshold under the 5% rule, and notes that filings are relatively infrequent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended use case is strongly implied by the threshold-crossing explanation.

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