major_holders_search

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

With no annotations, the description is responsible for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions data sources and gives no details about search behavior (e.g., exact vs fuzzy matching), processing of limit/scan_limit, ordering, or rate limits. The scope information is useful but insufficient.

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 sentence of 12 words, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the minimal information it conveys.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as parameter behavior and usage constraints. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it leaves the agent under-informed about how to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention holder_name search semantics or the meaning of limit and scan_limit. The parameter names are self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description adds no additional value beyond their existence.

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 action ('search') and the domain ('holder positions across UK notifications and Brazilian FRE data'), making the tool's purpose distinctive from siblings like major_holders_list. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings or clarify what constitutes a 'holder position'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as major_holders_list or disclosures_search. The description offers no context about scenarios where this search is appropriate or how it differs from related tools.

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