A股十大股东

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly identifies the operation as retrieving data, but it does not mention any specific behavioral traits such as whether the data spans multiple periods or requires authentication. A score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal 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 sentence that conveys the core functionality and purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from a slightly more structured breakdown of parameters.

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?

The tool has no output schema and 3 parameters, yet the description does not mention the return format or that the 'limit' parameter controls multiple periods of data. The context provided is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional inference.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% description coverage, the description's mention of 'A-shares' conflicts with the symbol parameter that accepts foreign stocks like AAPL. This contradiction reduces clarity, and the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that it retrieves top 10 shareholders or tradable shareholders for A-share stocks and specifies the purpose of analyzing equity structure and institutional holdings. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description merely states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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