Short Squeeze Scores

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the scoring methodology, that liquidity floors filter the board without altering scores, that floors are ignored for a single-ticker lookup, and why ETFs are excluded. It does not cover pagination or result freshness, but that gap is largely filled by the schema.

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?

Front-loads purpose and scoring inputs, then mode behavior, then the exclusion and alternative. Dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is that it packs a lot into a few long sentences, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

With no output schema and five documented parameters, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the score is, what universe it applies to, how modes and floors interact, and where to go for the excluded ETF case. Nothing material to correct invocation is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: it clarifies that liquidity floors do not change scores and that they do not apply to a ticker lookup, and that a ticker query returns a factor breakdown plus universe rank rather than a board. This resolves interaction questions the schema alone does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank primary operating-company stocks by a peer-relative 0-100 short-squeeze score') and enumerates the factors that feed the score. It explicitly scopes the universe (primary operating companies, ETFs excluded) and points to the sibling GetShortInterest for the ETF case, so an agent can distinguish it from GetShortInterest, GetShortVolume, and GetFailsToDeliver 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?

Gives clear context (screening/ranking for squeeze candidates) and an explicit alternative for the out-of-scope case ('use GetShortInterest for an ETF's exact FINRA series'). It also distinguishes board mode from single-ticker mode. It stops short of stating when *not* to use this tool for operating companies generally, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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