get_markets_short_sale_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds valuable context beyond that: 'Positions disclosed weekly per institution' (data cadence) and 'Standard+ only' (plan restriction). No contradictions. Minor gap: it doesn't mention pagination or response structure, but that's covered by output 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?

The description is well-structured: opening purpose, usage guidance, plan note, and organized argument list. It's slightly verbose due to the args duplication (though necessary given schema coverage) and a minor redundancy in mentioning 'Standard+ only' twice. Overall it earns its length.

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 complexity (5 optional params, no required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, parameter formats, and plan restrictions. It doesn't clarify which parameter combinations are valid (e.g., range vs single date), but for a read-only look-up tool this is a minor gap.

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 has zero descriptions for its 5 parameters, but the description fully compensates by documenting each arg with format and example (e.g., 'code: Stock code (5 digits, e.g. 27800)', 'disc_date: Disclosure date (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD)'). This provides the semantic meaning the schema lacks.

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 provides 'Per-stock institutional short sale positions (大量空売り残高)' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_markets_short_ratio' (sector-level short ratios), making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit use cases ('Use for 大量空売り残高, 空売り残, institutional short positions, short squeeze screening'), names an alternative ('For sector-level short ratios... use get_markets_short_ratio instead'), and even suggests a pairing ('Pair with get_equities_earnings_calendar...'). This is exemplary guidance for tool selection.

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