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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add meaningful behavioral context by detailing the data sources (FINRA venues, licensed-research archive) and historical depth (back to 2006). However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or how parameters like start/end/limit affect results, which are relevant for an agent.

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 stated first and supporting details following. The second sentence provides usage guidance and an alternative in an efficient manner. Minor issue: the final pointer is slightly convoluted, but it does not add unnecessary length.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns and when to use it. However, it does not cover parameter behavior (start/end/limit), output shape, or potential limitations like data gaps or update frequency, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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 coverage is only 25% (only ticker has a description). The description does not explain the date parameters (start, end) or limit, and there is no compensation for this gap in the schema. While the phrase 'back to 2006' implies date-range capability, it does not clarify formats or semantics.

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's purpose: 'Deep short-selling history' with explicit data composition (daily off-exchange short-volume series, FINRA venues, short ratio, back to 2006; plus official bi-monthly short-interest series). It distinguishes itself from likely siblings like tengu_v3_intel_short_interest by emphasizing historical depth and multi-year setups.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it for multi-year squeeze setups or shorting pressure around events.' It also suggests an alternative for today's borrow cost. However, the alternative is misnamed—'/intel/short_interest' is not the borrow cost tool (that would be /intel/borrow_cost)—which slightly weakens the guidance.

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