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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing exactly what is computed — max profit/loss, breakevens, net credit/debit, chance of profit, expected move — and that the return is a link into the Optionscanner calculator.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and output list, then input modes, then example queries, then the return artifact. Three dense sentences with no filler, though the output enumeration and example list make it longer than strictly minimal.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing computed metrics and the resulting link. Inputs and outputs are both covered; only explicit sibling routing and the up-to-eight-leg edge behavior remain unaddressed.

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 goes beyond the schema by clarifying the strategy-vs-legs mechanism: a strategy name builds standard legs from the stock price, whereas legs are passed manually with strikes and prices, reinforcing their mutual exclusivity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Price any options trade with up to eight legs') and enumerates the computed outputs. The 'any ... up to eight legs' framing implicitly distinguishes it as the general-purpose pricer versus the single-strategy siblings, but no sibling is named, so differentiation stays inferential.

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?

Offers concrete usage examples ('max loss on a spread', 'breakeven on a straddle') and two input modes (strategy name vs explicit legs). However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like credit_spread, debit_spread, probability_of_profit or expected_move, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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