Run register listing report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the blocking-then-pending async pattern, the reportId handoff to get_report, dual delivery (JSON file vs inline for small results), and the presence of investor personal data. It omits whether the file path is returned and any size/sensitivity handling guidance, so it falls short of fully rich disclosure.

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?

Four short, front-loaded statements with no filler; the deliverable comes first, then async mechanics, then delivery format, then a data-sensitivity warning. The telegraphic sentence fragments ('Saved to a JSON file; returned inline if small') are dense but slightly clipped for 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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining the return contract (inline vs file vs pending reportId) and flagging PII. It still leaves the filter parameters and any notion of report contents or output location unexplained, which matters for a report-generation tool of this size.

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 coverage is 64%, so most documented parameters already carry their own descriptions. The description only adds semantic meaning for waitSeconds (it explains the blocking-then-return-reportId behavior) and hints at asOfDate; the six-plus filtering parameters (holderTypes, priceName, countryCodes, min/max holding, postcodes) get no mention at all, leaving the gap partly uncompensated.

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 first sentence names a specific resource (register listing for securities) and a scope (as of a date), which distinguishes it from run_transaction_listing_report and run_fund_cash_flow_report. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 gives clear guidance for the async path ('waits up to waitSeconds, else returns a reportId for get_report'), which tells the agent how to continue when the report is pending. However, it never says when an agent should pick this report over the other run_*_report siblings, nor what prerequisites (issuer, securities) must be resolved first, so usage selection is only implied.

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