get_short_selling

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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, open-world read. Beyond that, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: values are un-converted (raw upstream units), the payload preserves upstream field shapes, and offset zero is the start of source order rather than the newest record. That last point prevents a common paging mistake.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded on the paging semantics and free of filler. Minor detraction: the clause 'data preserves upstream fields' is a fragment whose referent is unclear, and the telegraphed style trades a little readability for brevity.

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 read-only paginated endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the things an agent cannot get from structured fields: that values are unconverted, that the response is one page rather than full history, and the ordering convention of the offset. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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% (limit and offset are undocumented, order_book_id is covered). The description compensates for offset by explaining that zero is source order, not recency, but says nothing about limit or its maximum of 100, leaving that half of the surface to the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Page shortSellingHistory') and clearly scopes the tool as a paginated source-order reader rather than a summary. It implicitly distinguishes itself from a 'latest-value summary', though it never references any named sibling, so an agent must infer the split from the reading list.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'A page is not the full history or a latest-value summary' tells the agent this is one slice of a larger ordered set, and the offset caveat guides paging. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative tool guidance and no prerequisite or exclusion statements.

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