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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses a free keyless tier with a ~20 calls/day cap, states that a paid key silently enriches the same call with in-the-money values, filing description/section, and pre-consolidation strikes. It also warns that debt-convertible counts are units, NOT shares, and are excluded from overhang and in-the-money figures — exactly the kind of exclusion an agent could otherwise misreport.

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-loads the resource and scope, then layers the exclusion and the tier behaviour in a sensible order. The first sentence is a long field dump and the paid-tier sentence is somewhat sales-flavoured, but no sentence is purely 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned columns and distinguishing share-denominated from unit-denominated quantities. Combined with the tier and exclusion notes, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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% and the schema already states 'one ASX ticker code... no batch form,' so the description's single-company framing duplicates rather than adds. With one fully documented parameter, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a precise resource — the option and convertible register for one ASX company — and enumerates the returned fields (code, security kind, type, exercise price, expiry, quantity), making the boundary of the tool concrete. It also explicitly carves out debt convertibles as a separate list (`debt_convertibles`), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement and the explicit pointer away from debt convertibles, but there is no guidance about when to reach for this versus the listed siblings (get_dilution_snapshot, get_cash_runway, get_issuance_timeline). The free-vs-paid tier note is useful context but is about access, not tool selection.

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