stock_holders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the tool returns shareholder categories, institutional holders, insider ownership, and concentration analysis, which is useful. However, it does not mention data source, update frequency, limitations, or whether this is strictly a read-only operation beyond the word 'Get.'

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a scannable bullet list of insights and a clear Args section. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the bullet list could be slightly tighter without losing meaning.

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 is simple with one documented parameter and an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral context such as data source or limitations, leaving an agent to infer when and how reliably to use this tool relative to its siblings.

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% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting the ticker parameter with an explicit definition ('Indian stock ticker symbol') and concrete examples ('RELIANCE', 'TCS', 'INFY'). For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get major holders and institutional ownership information for an Indian stock.' The bullet list further clarifies the exact data categories, and this focus on ownership clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stock_quote, company_fundamentals, and analyst_recommendations.

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 the tool should be used when ownership or holder information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like company_fundamentals or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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