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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: each signal includes score breakdown, greeks enrichment, and delta-notional, and summarize=true returns a compact net bullish/bearish premium roll-up. This goes beyond the bare read-only hint, though it omits details like ordering, pagination, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a valuable usage tip. Every clause adds meaning; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 partially compensates by naming key output fields (score breakdown, greeks, delta-notional) and describing the summary mode's contents. However, it does not explain how this tool differs from several sibling flow tools (e.g., get_flow_live, get_flow_scan) or mention return structure/ordering, which leaves some context gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, but it does clarify the summarize parameter's effect (toggle between full feed and summary), which is a marginal addition. This aligns with the baseline.

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 defines the tool as a feed of scored, classified unusual options activity, listing specific signal types (sweeps, blocks, smart money, opening bias) and components (score breakdown, greeks, delta-notional). It distinguishes from generic option flow tools by focusing on scoring and classification, even without explicit sibling comparison.

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 implies use for scored/classified unusual flow and gives a concrete option (summarize=true) for a cheap summary roll-up. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over similarly named siblings like get_flow_scan or get_flow_live, nor does it provide exclusions, leaving the selection partly to inference.

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