get_shares

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: shares-outstanding history is returned as date points with amounts, only the most recent `limit` points are returned, and optional bounds apply. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well, though it does not mention what happens on an invalid symbol.

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 extremely concise at two short paragraphs. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second explains parameter usage. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the return format. It explains the input parameters well and the nature of the data retrieved. However, a brief note on error conditions (e.g., no data for the symbol) would make it fully complete for a tool interacting with an external financial data source.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by restating parameter usage (`limit`, `start`, `end`) and reinforcing the date format `YYYY-MM-DD`, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for any of the parameters.

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's action ('get the shares-outstanding history'), the resource ('Yahoo symbol'), and the specific data returned ('each point is a date and reported shares outstanding'). It is distinct from siblings like `get_dividends`, `get_history`, and `get_quotes`, which return different data types.

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 explanation of how to use parameters (`limit`, `start`, `end`) provides solid guidance for bounding the query. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_history` or `get_fund_data`, nor does it state when not to use it.

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