company_shareholders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the purpose. It does not disclose data source options (VCI/KBS), result ordering, limits, or any other behavioral traits. The 'Get' verb implies a read operation, but nothing else is conveyed.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool, though it could have been expanded with useful context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has low complexity and an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks any usage context, alternatives, or behavioral information (e.g., data source behavior, whether 'major' means a specific limit). The one-liner is minimal and does not fully equip an agent to choose and use the tool correctly among many siblings.

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 100%, so the parameters symbol and source are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the property descriptions, hence the 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 action ('Get') and resource ('major shareholders of a company'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like company_officers or company_overview because it targets shareholder data specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools like company_overview or company_news.

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