major_holders

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is read-only (reporting large holdings) and mentions the data source and threshold (5%+). However, it omits details on pagination, data freshness, or whether it returns all holders or only recent changes, which limits transparency.

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?

The description is concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose, input, and use case. It avoids unnecessary repetition and is front-loaded with key information. However, the mix of Korean and English could be streamlined for broader readability.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should describe the return format or fields. It only mentions the input and use case, leaving the agent uninformed about whether the result includes dates, holder names, or percentages. This incompleteness forces reliance on trial and error.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'company' can be a stock code, unique number, or company name, adding crucial meaning beyond the schema's title. This is helpful for the agent, though specific format examples or validation rules would further improve it.

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 clearly states the tool reports on large shareholding situations (5% or more), including changes, for a given company. It mentions the source (majorstock.json) and a specific use case (governance/management disputes). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like insider_holdings, which focuses on insider transactions, though it could be more explicit about retrieving 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?

The description provides only a vague use case ('for review of governance and management disputes') without specifying when to use this tool versus alternatives like insider_holdings or search_disclosures. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision guidance.

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