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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context the annotations cannot: the outputs are model-derived ('gamma walls', 'max pain') and that dealer signs are an assumption, not observed positions — a critical caveat for interpreting results. It could go further on whether SYNTH vs supplied chains change the assumptions.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the deliverable set is front-loaded and the interpretation caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

A high-complexity analytics tool with 9 undocumented parameters and a rights_confirmed flag gets only a one-line purpose statement. The output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the input side — what each optional parameter changes and how source_data/source_text/source_format interact — is left entirely to guesswork.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the schema explains nothing and the description must compensate. It only clarifies the data-source fork ('SYNTH or a user-supplied chain'), leaving rate, expiry, dividend_yield, and especially rights_confirmed (a boolean that plausibly gates licensing/entitlement) completely undefined.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Return') tied to three named outputs — gamma walls, gamma flip, max pain — and states both accepted data sources (SYNTH or a user-supplied chain). That is far more specific than the title 'Dealer positioning' and separates it from the snapshot/import siblings, though it never names an alternative tool.

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 implies when to call it (you want positioning analytics from a synthetic or supplied chain) but gives no explicit exclusions, no mention of when to prefer option_chain_snapshot or the snapshot-based siblings first, and no note on prerequisites such as supplying a snapshot before analysis.

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