Get Dilution Coverage Status

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

The description carries a heavy burden beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, and it delivers: it discloses that the call ALWAYS returns 200 and requires reading `available` and `reason` rather than HTTP status, that not_covered means not analyzed (not no dilution or outage), that null/absent/withheld means NOT MEASURED (never zero), and that outOfScope is about product coverage not the company. It also explains the 403 for non-Pro users. These are critical behavioral nuances that annotations alone do not provide.

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 long but each sentence adds substantive information about interpretation, error handling, or tier requirements. It front-loads the purpose and usage, then details semantic pitfalls. While a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) would improve scannability, the length is justified by the complexity of the tool's semantics and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with high semantic complexity (distinguishing not_covered from no dilution, null vs measured zero, outage vs unavailable, outOfScope meaning, tier requirements), the description covers all essential operational pitfalls. It also relies on the existing output schema for return-value details, so no gap remains. An agent can call this tool correctly and interpret its response without additional context.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter (ticker) with a clear description and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but none is needed for a simple ticker string. It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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 states a specific purpose: a cheap pre-check for whether Signal8 holds a dilution analysis for a company, and enumerates exactly what it returns (coverage status, extraction state, timestamps, tier, out-of-scope flag). It explicitly differentiates from the expensive dilution tools by instructing to call this first, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_dilution_history or get_dilution_snapshot without opening their schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'CALL THIS FIRST before the expensive dilution tools' and explains it answers 'is there anything to fetch' at a fraction of the cost. It also provides exclusion criteria for interpretation (e.g., not_covered vs outage, null vs 0) and mentions the Pro-tier requirement, making it clear when this tool is applicable versus alternatives.

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