Stock Ownership

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is content-level behavior. It does add value by describing what the response contains — dividend fields and MF holding fields — which substitutes for the missing output schema. It does not cover edge behavior such as empty holdings or date-range semantics.

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 zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the two data sections each get one precise explanatory 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 tool with fully documented alias parameters and safety annotations, the description covers what the agent needs: the input (symbol) and exactly what data comes back, compensating for the absent output schema. Minor gaps are edge-case behavior and not pointing to sibling ownership tools, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are fully documented as aliases for symbol. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema ('for a stock' merely echoes symbol), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get ownership data for a stock') and enumerates the two concrete sub-parts — dividend history and mutual fund holdings — with field-level detail. This clearly differentiates it from nearby siblings like get_shareholding and get_promoter_pledge, whose ownership scopes differ.

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 field breakdown ('Dividends include ex-date, amount, type... MF holdings show...') implies when this tool is appropriate, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names the competing sibling (get_shareholding). The agent must infer the boundary between ownership tools.

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