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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool is free and not advice, and clarifies it reports volume not interest. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, error behavior, or data freshness. The description adds some context but leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarification about volume vs interest is added efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 purpose, clarifies the volume/interest distinction, and notes the tool is free. Given an output schema exists, the return format may be specified there. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid ticker, what 'last few trading days' means exactly, and whether 'days' is inclusive). It is adequate for a simple data tool but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly refers to 'ticker' and 'last few trading days' for the 'days' parameter, but does not explicitly name or describe the parameters, their types, or the default value for 'days'. The description adds minimal parameter-level value beyond the schema itself.

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 tool provides SEC/FINRA short-sale volume percentage for a ticker over the last few trading days. It explicitly distinguishes itself from short interest, which is a common point of confusion. The verb 'short-sale VOLUME %' is specific and unambiguous.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools. The description offers an interpretation of heavy short volume (selling pressure or squeeze setup) but does not state conditions for selection or mention alternatives. An agent would have to infer when to call it.

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