shareholding_pattern

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that data is 'pattern-extracted from search snippets' and must be verified against the source URL. This goes beyond what the annotations convey and appropriately warns about potential reliability limitations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output scope; the second adds a necessary reliability caveat. Every clause contributes value.

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 description covers the core output and verification expectation, which is reasonable given no output schema. However, it does not address the optional context fields such as sector, country, listed, or companyDomain, and the 'listed company' framing leaves the unlisted/sector/global possibilities under-specified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. It never explains how to populate context.company, context.date, context.listed, context.sector, context.country, or context.companyDomain. The only indirect hint is 'listed company,' which is too weak to count as meaningful parameter guidance.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a specific resource ('Promoter / FII / DII / Public shareholding split'), and sources ('screener.in, Trendlyne, and exchange sources'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like management_profile or financial_statements by naming a unique data domain and scope.

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 gives clear usage context: this data is a standalone exhibit in institutional notes, implying it is the tool to use when such an exhibit is needed. It also provides a practical guardrail: verify against the source URL before client-facing quoting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it misses the top score.

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