get_company_major_shareholders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's purpose but omits critical behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Obtain major shareholders information') and efficiently includes key details (ownership threshold, company type, input parameter). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral transparency, it lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use, such as permissions or data constraints, leaving room for improvement.

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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'code' by specifying it as a 'stock code' for a 'listed company', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could detail format (e.g., ticker symbol conventions).

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 specific action ('Obtain'), resource ('major shareholders information'), and scope ('for a listed company based on its stock code'), with the additional detail 'over 10% ownership' that distinguishes it from generic shareholder tools. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., get_company_shareholder_meeting_announcements, get_company_ownership_and_control). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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