Shareholders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data source (statutory equity roster), legal-form-conditional disclosure, possible empty list/document pointer/explanation responses, and preservation of raw upstream fields. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured across three paragraphs. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Still, it maintains clarity without unnecessary repetition.

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 complexity of distinguishing shareholders from beneficial owners and conditional disclosures, the description covers all important scenarios: empty list, document pointer, statutory explanation, unsupported jurisdictions. It references sibling tools and explains response flags. No gaps remain.

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 description does not add new information about parameters beyond what the input schema already provides. However, schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are already detailed and extensive, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Return the shareholders / members / quota-holders — the legal-statutory equity roster published by the registry, no ownership-threshold filter.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_officers or fetch_document.

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 says 'Use this for any shareholder / member / quota-holder question.' It clearly differentiates from beneficial owners (PSC/UBO) and explains when results may be empty or point to a document. It also mentions unsupported jurisdictions return 501, providing complete guidance.

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