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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds useful context about the data content (pain curve, put/call OI ratio, dealer alignment, pin probability, per-expiration breakdown), but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or default expiration handling beyond what the schema already covers.

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 sentence that begins with the verb 'Get' and immediately lists the key outputs. Every word earns its place, there is no filler, and the structure is easy to scan. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the primary returned data elements. However, it does not explicitly state that this tool provides current (not historical) max pain data or mention the existence of get_historical_max_pain, which would have made the context complete. Overall, it is nearly complete for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 all three parameters (apiKey, symbol, expiration) are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics or clarify how the listed outputs map to the parameters. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('max pain') with a detailed list of outputs: max pain strike, pain curve, put/call OI ratio, dealer alignment, pin probability, and per-expiration breakdown. This level of specificity clearly distinguishes it from related tools like get_flow_pin_risk or get_expected_move, even without explicitly naming an alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it returns current max pain data or that get_historical_max_pain should be used for historical data. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and sibling list, which is not explicit.

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