list_short_interest

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data is returned (though an output schema exists). It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little value.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it may be too brief given the complexity of the parameters.

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 high parameter count (10), low schema coverage (0%), and no output schema details provided in context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, return values, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively despite having an output schema.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'ticker', 'settlement_date', 'limit', or other parameters mean or how they interact, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'short interest data for stocks', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_short_volume' or other data retrieval tools in the same domain, which would require more specificity for a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'list_short_volume', 'list_tickers'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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