Shareholding Pattern

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 covered structurally. The description adds useful context about what kinds of holdings are included and the time-series nature of the data, but does not disclose details such as default period handling or whether latest/current values are returned when type is omitted.

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 no filler: the tool's purpose, the data categories, and a use case are all covered efficiently. The most distinctive information ('over time', 'quarter over quarter') is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main content and purpose adequately. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool differs from the overlapping sibling get_stock_ownership, and it does not mention the 'Omit for all' period behavior that is only in the schema. These are gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right call.

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 documents all parameters, including the enum for 'type' and the aliases for 'symbol'. The description adds conceptual context ('over time', 'quarter over quarter') rather than concrete parameter semantics, which is acceptable at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get shareholding pattern') and enumerates the content categories (promoter, FII, DII, public holdings). It also adds the distinctive temporal dimension ('over time', 'quarter over quarter'), which helps separate it from the sibling get_stock_ownership even though no sibling is named.

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?

The description gives a use case ('Track institutional buying/selling trends quarter over quarter') and an application ('understanding ownership changes'), so usage is implied. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or names alternatives like get_stock_ownership or get_promoter_pledge, leaving the selection decision partly to inference.

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