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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral context: volumes cover only FINRA facilities (off-exchange/TRF), not consolidated tape, and the 40-50% Short % baseline from market-maker liquidity must not be quoted as a share of total volume. This goes far beyond annotations and prevents misinterpretation.

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?

Four sentences deliver high density of useful information: source, output fields, scope, interpretation caveat, and sibling distinctions. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does: it lists the four fields. It also covers data source, scope limitations, and a misuse warning. For a moderately complex read-only tool, this is comprehensive.

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 100% (4 params with descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it focuses on output semantics and scope. It implicitly mentions daily trading days but doesn't elaborate on parameter formats or behaviors already documented in the schema.

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+resource: 'Get daily short sale volume history for a stock from FINRA's short sale volume files.' It then lists the exact output fields (short volume, short-exempt volume, total volume, short volume percentage) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like GetShortInterest, GetLargestShortVolume, and GetShortSqueezeScores.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance by stating 'This daily flow metric is distinct from bi-monthly short interest positions: use GetShortInterest for positions, GetLargestShortVolume for a market-wide single-day ranking, and GetShortSqueezeScores for squeeze candidates.' This names alternatives and clarifies the tool's unique role.

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