get_company_ownership_and_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'obtain' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'ownership and control information' entails (e.g., structure, depth). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key input constraint, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the parameter's role, but lacks behavioral details and usage context. The output schema likely covers return values, so completeness is acceptable but not thorough.

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 that the parameter 'code' is a 'stock code', providing meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this minimal addition is sufficient for a baseline score, as the schema lacks details but the description clarifies the parameter's purpose.

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 ('obtain') and resource ('ownership and control information for a listed company'), specifying it's based on a stock code. It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on different company data (e.g., financials, governance, trading), though not explicitly from similar tools like 'get_company_major_shareholders' or 'get_company_board_shareholdings'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'based on its stock code' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'get_company_major_shareholders'), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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