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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is a 'latest snapshot only' rebuilt every few minutes, calls/puts are counted by convention rather than direct measurement, single-stock results are approximations, and units are 'US dollars of dealer delta per 1% move.' These details meaningfully inform invocation and interpretation.

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?

Although longer than average, every sentence carries distinct information: scope, return contents, use cases, exclusions, limits, conventions, and units. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into clear 'Use when,' 'Not for,' 'Limits,' and 'Units' segments.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description still covers what the tool returns, when to use it, what it excludes, its freshness limits, its conventions, and its units. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call it and what to expect back.

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 already fully documents the symbol parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the symbol must be non-SPX, providing representative examples, and noting that unknown tickers return an error naming the supported-symbol page. This goes beyond the schema without needing to duplicate it.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'latest dealer gamma picture for a symbol OTHER than the SPX archive,' and gives concrete examples like QQQ and NVDA. It also differentiates itself from siblings such as get_gex_profile and get_levels by explicitly excluding tape-signed and session-based books.

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 explicitly states 'Use when: the question is about a ticker's gamma exposure, flip or walls right now or at the last close' and 'Not for: SPX history, a past date, or the tape-signed measured book (get_session, get_levels, get_gex_profile).' This provides clear decision rules and names alternative tools.

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