Promoter Share Pledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful return-content context (quarterly pledge percentages plus pledge creation/release events), which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but it does not discuss units, reporting lag, edge cases, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return content and a selection-relevant risk signal. Every sentence earns its place, though the trailing 'governance red flag' note is slightly editorial rather than purely functional.

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 present, the description compensates by stating what data comes back (quarterly pledge percentage and pledge events). The tool is simple with fully documented aliased parameters, so nothing essential for a correct call is missing; minor gaps like date range semantics are acceptable at this complexity.

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 three parameters (symbol, ticker, identifier) are fully documented as the same lookup field. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden; the description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get the promoter share-pledge history for a stock') and precisely what it returns (pledge percentage over quarters plus creation/release events). It is distinct from siblings like get_stock_ownership and get_shareholding by virtue of the focused pledge content, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate those siblings.

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?

It provides a clear use case — 'Use to assess promoter financial stress and risk' — and flags pledge levels as a governance red flag, which helps an agent decide when this metric is relevant. However, it names no alternative tools and gives no when-not-to-use guidance relative to overlapping siblings like get_shareholding or get_stock_events.

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