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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context about the calculation method (VWAP-weighted, full flow tape) and the configurable window, but does not describe return format, pagination, or access restrictions beyond the 'Alpha tier' note.

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 description is a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the core concept and key differentiator. It could be slightly more concise by omitting 'Alpha tier', but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the metric and its interpretation. It does not specify the output structure, but given the simple inputs (symbol, window) and the phrase 'shows whether dealers are net long or short premium', the output is likely a numeric direction/value. The readOnlyHint covers safety, making the description sufficient.

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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters (apiKey, symbol, windowMinutes) with complete details, so the description need not repeat them. It mentions 'configurable window', which maps to windowMinutes, but adds no new semantic information 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?

The description clearly states the tool computes net dealer options premium, explaining the VWAP-weighted buy vs write calculation and the outcome of net long/short premium. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gex or get_dex by focusing specifically on dealer premium.

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?

Provides clear context about the metric's time frame ('today', 'over the configurable window') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since sibling tools exist for related dealer metrics, some explicit guidance would help, but the context is sufficient for a focused tool.

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