get_shares

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: each point is a date and reported shares outstanding, only the most recent 'limit' points are returned, and 'start'/'end' optionally bound the range. It does not mention ordering (implicitly descending by recency) or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are meaningful and sufficient for a read-only data retrieval 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 succinct and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by the symbol constraint, and then the limit/date-range behavior. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundant filler, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, an output schema exists), the description covers the essential context: what data is returned (date + shares outstanding), the effect of 'limit', and the optional 'start'/'end' bounds. It does not need to explain return value structure since an output schema is present. A minor gap is the lack of explicit statement about chronological ordering, but 'most recent' implies it.

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 detailed per-parameter descriptions (e.g., the symbol property already explains ISIN/WKN invalid cases and the search fallback). The tool description adds a small amount of context about the data points (date + shares outstanding) but largely reiterates what is already in the schema, so it does not significantly extend parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the shares-outstanding history for a Yahoo symbol.' This clearly states what the tool does and the resource (shares-outstanding history) is distinct from any sibling tool. It also provides concrete examples of valid symbols, reinforcing the purpose.

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 gives clear usage context: it specifies that the symbol must be a native Yahoo ticker, explicitly excludes ISINs, WKNs, or company names, and instructs the agent to resolve those via the 'search' tool first. It also explains the 'limit' parameter behavior ('only the most recent limit points are returned'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for related data (e.g., price history via 'get_history'), so it stops short of full when-to-use/alternatives guidance.

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