shareholder_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are multiple dated snapshots and that deltas are computed between them — the only signal about return content, since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating how many snapshots are returned, how far back history goes, or pagination behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('dated', 'with computed changes') arrives immediately. It is arguably too terse for a history tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 is simple (2 params, both fully documented, no nested objects), so the description only needs to clarify the return shape — which it does only partially. It never defines what the 'computed changes' measure (share count, percentage, ranking shift) or whether the response is a list of snapshots, leaving a meaningful gap on the history dimension.

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 schema already explains the Jalali/Gregorian date formats, the omit-for-latest default, and the symbol/insCode convention. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema is this complete.

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 names a specific resource ('major-holder snapshots') with a clear scope modifier ('dated', 'for a symbol') and an added computation ('changes between snapshots'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself by name from the lookalike siblings 'shareholders' and 'shareholder_portfolio', which an agent must infer is the non-historical counterpart.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'history' plus 'changes between snapshots' suggests this is for trend/ownership-change analysis rather than a current snapshot, which is presumably what 'shareholders' provides. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so selection against the sibling shareholder tools relies on inference.

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