get_markets_short_ratio

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: default returns a compact summary, detail=True returns full rows, and any filter parameter returns full data. It also discloses plan restrictions. No contradiction with 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 well-organized with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, behavior explanation, plan note, and parameter list. Each section adds necessary information without redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, alternatives, parameter semantics, plan requirements, and default output behavior. The presence of an output schema means return value details are not required in the description.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description's Args block thoroughly documents every parameter: s33 with an example code, date formats, range parameters, and the detail flag's conditional behavior. This fully compensates for the schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the TSE 33-sector short selling ratio, with both English and Japanese labels. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_markets_short_sale_report by contrasting sector-level vs per-stock data.

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?

It states when to use the tool ('Use for 業種別空売り比率, sector-level 空売り動向') and explicitly names the alternative tool for per-stock short positions. It also notes the plan requirement (Standard+ only) and explains the default vs detail behavior.

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