get_shareholding

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns a breakdown for 10 quarters but does not disclose authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a fully transparent behavioral profile.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, but the extreme brevity omits parameter documentation.

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 simple structure (1 param, no output schema), the description is mostly complete about the output but fails to explain the input parameter. Compared to siblings, it lacks context on the scope (e.g., company-specific only). Adequate but not fully informative.

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 for the single parameter 'slug', and the description adds no meaning to it. The agent is left to guess what a 'slug' refers to (e.g., company identifier, ticker). This is a critical gap that hinders correct invocation.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource '10-quarter shareholding breakdown' with specific components (promoter %, FII %, DII %, public %). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fund_flow or get_financials by focusing on shareholding percentages.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. However, the specificity of the data implicitly indicates it is for shareholding analysis. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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