shareholder_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no indication of what the portfolio response contains, whether it is per-symbol or market-wide, or how the open-world scope is resolved. With the lower bar set by annotations, this still leaves the behavior opaque.

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 short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficient: 'Everything else' is undefined and the sentence is not front-loaded with a clear verb. Length is fine; substance is thin.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations explaining return shape, the description should say what a portfolio here comprises (symbols, quantities, values, status) and confirm the market-wide scope. 'Everything else' leaves the agent guessing about the result set and its boundaries.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required holder_id already documented as coming from 'shareholders', so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema carries it fully.

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?

It names a resource (a major holder's holdings across the market, with the Persian gloss پرتفوی سهامدار) but the verb is implicit and the framing 'Everything else that major holder owns' is relative to something unstated. An agent cannot tell from this text how it differs from the sibling tools 'shareholders' and 'shareholder_history'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of the natural alternatives (shareholders, shareholder_history, market_holder_moves) that an agent would need to choose between. The only hint is that the holder id should come from 'shareholders', which lives in the schema, not the description.

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