get_top10_free_shareholders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns top 10 free shareholders with specified fields, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention data freshness, ordering, or whether the result is limited to exactly 10 entries. The transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence in Chinese, efficiently conveying the tool's function and output fields. It is front-loaded and to the point. One could argue for more structure (e.g., listing fields separately), but it remains succinct without wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and output. It specifies data fields and the 'free' scope. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of time period or sorting), but it is largely complete for a straightforward data retrieval tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the only parameter 'symbol' has a clear description), the tool description adds no extra parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation. The description only restates the tool's purpose without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 tool retrieves top 10 free float shareholders data, including specific fields (name, type, shares, proportion). It explicitly notes '仅流通股' (only tradable shares), distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_top10_shareholders. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '十大流通股东数据' (top 10 free shareholders data) provide clear purpose.

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 implies usage for getting tradable shareholder data via '仅流通股', contrasting with the sibling tool which likely includes non-tradable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it provide context like prerequisites or typical use cases. Guidelines are only implied, not direct.

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