Short Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds value by disclosing data sources (FINRA, HKEX) and update frequencies (bi-weekly, daily), which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose, then specifies parameters, followed by output fields per market. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (timestamps, short shares, rate, close, plus market-specific fields). It also covers parameter constraints and data sources, making the tool's behavior completely understandable.

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 baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by explaining symbol format (e.g., 'AAPL.US'), market inference, and count range (1–100, default 20), adding meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 retrieves short interest history for HK or US stocks, with market inferred from symbol suffix. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'short_margin' and 'short_trades'.

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 clear context: use for open short positions, with market-specific output differences. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, though the naming and intended use are evident.

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