get_company_shareholder_proposal_exercise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets information,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify any behavioral traits such as data format, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes 'shareholder exercise of proposal rights' (e.g., historical data, current status). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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, efficient sentence: 'Get information about shareholder exercise of proposal rights.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by specifying the type of information.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain parameters or return values. However, it lacks context about the tool's scope, data source, or any limitations, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly. The description is minimal but meets basic requirements due to the simple nature of the 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe. Given the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, this score reflects that the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 states the tool 'Get information about shareholder exercise of proposal rights' which provides a clear verb ('Get information') and resource ('shareholder exercise of proposal rights'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what type of information is retrieved (e.g., statistics, details, history) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_company_shareholder_meeting_announcements' or 'get_companies_cumulative_voting', which might relate to similar shareholder activities.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools focused on company and shareholder data, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is the appropriate choice, leaving usage unclear.

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