shareholders

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds useful output context (the fields returned and the holder_id hook), but says nothing about whether this is a current snapshot versus historical data, how many holders are returned, or ordering.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the return fields, with the bilingual term aiding symbol lookup. The trailing 'for deeper lookups' is slightly vague and could be tightened to name the intended follow-up tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list the key fields plus the holder_id linkage. For a single-parameter read tool it is nearly complete; only the snapshot-vs-history question and result scope remain unstated.

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% and the single symbol parameter is documented with concrete examples ('فولاد' or an insCode). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool where the schema does the work.

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 shareholders, with the Persian term for matching) and enumerates the returned fields: shares, percent, holder_id. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like shareholder_history, shareholder_portfolio, or market_holder_moves, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 through the required symbol parameter; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The phrase 'for deeper lookups' hints at a follow-up tool using holder_id, but it never names that tool, so the chaining guidance is suggestive rather than actionable.

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