financials_shares_outstanding_diluted

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 simply states 'Get historical diluted shares outstanding' but doesn't disclose the data granularity (e.g., annual, quarterly), the range of historical periods, the units, or any limitations such as coverage for certain tickers. This is insufficient for a financial data tool.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it adds almost no information beyond what the tool name already implies ('financials_shares_outstanding_diluted' already signals the metric). It doesn't earn its place with substantive detail, though it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the expected output format, any constraints on the parameters (e.g., valid ranges for periods), or how historical data is presented. Given the financial domain and the presence of many sibling tools, an agent would need more context to call this correctly without extra research.

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%, meaning both 'ticker' and 'periods' are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'periods' refers to in terms of frequency). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies and is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'historical diluted shares outstanding', which is specific enough to differentiate from the sibling 'financials_shares_outstanding_basic' through the qualifier 'diluted'. It clearly states what data is returned and the timeframe (historical), though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the basic shares tool or any other related metric, nor any conditions that would make this the preferred choice. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is a gap.

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