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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Access') and states the main output (total number of publicly traded shares), but does not explicitly mention read-only status, return format, or any side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The first sentence includes some marketing language ('Understand the liquidity and volatility') but is not wasteful. It earns its place by conveying the context.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: it names the resource and the key output. The mention of liquidity/volatility adds context without overcomplicating the simple nature of the tool.

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 single parameter 'symbol' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 accesses the total number of publicly traded shares (share float) for a company, with a specific verb 'Access' and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like getAllShareFloat, but the singular scope is clear from the parameter requirement.

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 usage for understanding liquidity and volatility, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getAllShareFloat or getMarketCap. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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