A股十大股东

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves holder lists but does not mention behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination, or whether it returns multiple periods (the 'limit' parameter suggests this). The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks comprehensive 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 a single, dense sentence in Chinese (~30 characters) with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and parameter purpose, but it could improve by briefly noting the return format (e.g., list of holders with share counts) or data frequency.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; the phrase about analyzing ownership structure provides context but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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's purpose: to retrieve top 10 shareholders or circulating shareholders of A-share stocks for analyzing ownership structure and institutional holding changes. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_holder_num or stock_institutional_holdings.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (for ownership structure analysis) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the numerous sibling tools. The phrase '用于分析股权结构和机构持仓变化' gives a strong usage hint.

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