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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds specific return fields and the source (FINRA consolidated), providing useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists key output fields without fluff. It is concise and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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?

While the tool's purpose and output fields are clear, the missing explanations for 'limit' and 'years' parameters create a gap. With no output schema, the description's field list helps, but an agent would not know how to set sensible values for limit and years without external knowledge.

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 only 33% (only symbol has a description). The description does not explain 'limit' or 'years' parameters, leaving their meaning ambiguous. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not mention these parameters at all.

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 ('Get'), a precise resource ('FINRA consolidated short-interest settlements'), and enumerates the returned fields (shares short, prior position, average volume, days to cover, change, revisions). This makes it distinct from siblings like market.quotes or market.history, which serve different data needs.

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 implies the tool is for short-interest data but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks explicit routing guidance such as 'use for short interest only' or 'not for real-time quotes', leaving usage context implicit.

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