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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which data elements are returned, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, aggregation logic, or potential rate limits. Given the readOnly annotation, the bar is lower, but the description could still add context about how the summary is compiled.

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, tightly packed sentence with a colon-separated list of contents. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get full exposure summary') and uses every word to convey useful information without repetition or 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?

With no output schema, the description needs to convey what the agent will get back, and it does so by listing the major components. It covers the key aspects of an exposure summary, though it omits details like units or interpretation of gamma regime. For a summary tool, this is a reasonably complete picture.

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 input schema covers both parameters (apiKey and symbol) with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not add syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already states, and it only indirectly references the symbol via 'Stock/ETF ticker' in the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a 'full exposure summary' and enumerates specific components (net GEX/DEX/VEX/CHEX, gamma regime, key levels, hedging estimates, zero-DTE breakdown, top strikes). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gex or get_dex that focus on single metrics.

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 'full' prefix implies this is the comprehensive alternative to narrower exposure tools, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_exposure_sheet, get_exposure_basket, or get_historical_exposure_summary. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the selection guidance somewhat implicit.

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