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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing response components: chain totals, Line-in-the-Sand inflection, gamma peaks, and OPEX/triple-witching flags. It does not mention pagination or potential large response size, but these are not critical given the read-only annotation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and contains no filler. Every clause adds useful information about what the tool returns and when to use it.

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 the complexity of a unified exposure sheet and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a solid high-level inventory of response components. It could further clarify potential size or performance implications of returning all strikes, but the core usage is sufficiently specified.

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 fully documents apiKey, min_oi, symbol, and expiration. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a unified per-strike exposure sheet combining GEX, DEX, VEX, CHEX, and DAG in one response. It distinguishes itself from sibling single-metric tools by emphasizing the combined response and the ability to scan all greeks at every strike in a single call.

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 states a clear usage scenario: 'Use to scan all greeks at every strike in a single call.' This implies when the agent should choose this tool over per-metric siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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