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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses key traits: the two measures are a flow and a stock and can diverge, and that share volume is fractional so sub-1-share values are genuine. It does not describe return format, auth, or rate limits, but the disclosed caveats are significant and go beyond a generic data-retrieval description.

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 about 70 words and packs in a data definition, use cases, a divergence warning, and a fractional-shares caveat. The opening phrase 'How shorted is this name, from the tape itself:' is slightly rhetorical and adds little, but the rest is efficient and front-loaded with the core data content. Overall, it earns its 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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the returned concepts: daily short-volume prints and settled short interest with the key metrics. It also addresses caveats like divergence and fractional shares. Missing details include the exact output structure and what 'days' controls, but for a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context well.

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 schema provides only a minimal description for ticker and no description for the 'days' parameter, giving 50% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain any parameters, leaving the meaning of 'days' ambiguous (likely a lookback window, but unstated). For a low-coverage schema, the description should have compensated, but it does not.

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 identifies the tool as returning daily consolidated short-volume prints joined with settled short interest, naming specific metrics (short ratio per session, position, days-to-cover). It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'get' or 'list', but the resource and scope are evident. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling short-interest tools, though the combined flow/stock nature provides some differentiation.

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 explicit use cases: 'squeeze setups, crowded shorts, or to check whether daily shorting is rising while settled interest lags.' It also warns about interpreting the two measures as a flow vs. stock, which is valuable usage guidance. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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