financials_shares_outstanding_basic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get historical basic shares outstanding' and does not describe the nature of the return value (e.g., a list of data points, units, frequency), any prerequisites (like API key or subscription), or limitations (such as data availability). Since it is a read operation, some safety is implied by 'Get', but without annotations the description offers no depth beyond that minimal implication.

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose directly without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. While it is brief, it does not waste words; the brevity is appropriate for such a straightforward tool, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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 low complexity (two parameters) and absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., share counts, dates), any units, or the meaning of 'periods' beyond the schema's generic description. An agent might be able to call the tool but would not know how to interpret the response. More behavioral context (such as the format or frequency of data) is needed for full completeness.

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 100%, with both parameters (ticker and periods) already having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it only provides context that the data is historical basic shares. Per the rule, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation, which it does here.

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 verb (Get), resource (historical basic shares outstanding), and the specific metric (basic, not diluted). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool financials_shares_outstanding_diluted, and the term 'historical' indicates a time series. An agent can easily separate it from other financials tools without opening any schema.

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 basic shares data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the diluted counterpart or any other alternative. It provides no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone. There is no mention of when this should be preferred over similar financial metrics.

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