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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining the 0-100 score range, the classification labels (tight, normal, wide, illiquid) with thresholds, and the specific metrics included. This provides insight into the tool's output semantics beyond the basic safety 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, with the first sentence listing all returned metrics and the second sentence providing usage guidance. Every word contributes meaning, and the most important information is 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?

With no output schema, the description effectively lists the returned fields and the label thresholds, and it explains practical use cases. It does not explicitly mention the number of expiries returned or the time sensitivity of the data, but it is sufficiently complete for typical usage in selecting liquid expiries.

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 for both apiKey and symbol, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, matching the baseline of 3.

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 per-expiry option liquidity scores along with specific metrics (ATM bid-ask spread, OI-weighted spread, ATM OI depth, execution quality). It lists concrete outputs and differentiates the tool from siblings like get_option_chain or get_option_quote by focusing specifically on liquidity metrics and scoring labels.

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?

'Use to select the most liquid expiry, assess execution quality, or screen for tight spreads' provides clear use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related analyses, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still gives practical guidance.

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