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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: the 'exactly one method with its declared inputs (no defaults)' rule and the error envelope contract (INVALID_ARGUMENT instead of raising). It does not describe whether greeks are always returned, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 prohibition clause is front-loaded well, but the per-method input lists read as a compressor run-on and are somewhat redundant with the method enum plus parameter descriptions. The content is justified by the combinatorial method/input matrix, but the dense single block is heavy to parse.

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 a 9-way method enum over 22 parameters with only one required field, the method-to-input mapping is the key missing piece and it is provided. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the error contract closes the remaining gap. Nothing an agent needs to form a valid call is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter's meaning and constraints (maturity > 0, volatility > 0, IFRS 2 labels). The description goes further by mapping which inputs each method value requires, which is semantic information the field-level schema does not express. It does not add unit/format details beyond 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?

States a specific verb (price) and a well-defined resource (European/American options and warrants) with the exact formula families named. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling calculate_structured_product, which an agent could otherwise confuse given the overlapping 'contingent payoff' domain.

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?

Explicitly names the exclusion set (CBBCs, inline/derivative warrants, autocallables) and routes the agent to the correct sibling calculate_structured_product. The 'single contingent claim or warrant on one underlying' framing gives the positive selection criterion.

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