get_shareholders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say the data is a point-in-time snapshot tied to the required year, how the 'first'/'last'/'all' version choice affects results, or whether large holders are paginated by max_rows.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the core concept (ownership and stake size) front-loaded. Its brevity is genuine conciseness rather than padding, though the fragment style leaves it slightly informal.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, so the description need not cover return values or parameter formats. However, for a tool requiring both a CVM code and a year with a non-obvious version selector, the description leaves the agent without any operational context beyond 'this is about shareholders.'

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 all four parameters (year, cd_cvm, version, max_rows) are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, such as what 'version' means for amended shareholder filings.

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?

"Shareholder position: who owns the company and how much" identifies the resource (ownership stakes) and adds a hint that magnitude/stake size is included, but it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a specific verb+resource statement. It gives no signal distinguishing it from related siblings such as get_capital, get_board, or get_insider_trades, which also surface ownership/governance data.

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 prerequisites (e.g. obtaining cd_cvm via search_company first, though the schema hints at that), and no named alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this or get_insider_trades / get_capital is the right call for an ownership question.

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