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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output behavior (top-N sorting, aggregate totals) but doesn't disclose details like time range specifics, pagination, or data source limitations. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core output then use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy 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?

The description adequately covers what the tool returns (per-contract changes, top-N, call/put totals) and why to use it. With no output schema, this is sufficient for a read-only tool with fully documented parameters. It could mention edge cases or data scope, but overall is complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (symbol, topN, apiKey). The description mentions 'top-N sorted' which aligns with the topN parameter, but adds little beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 computes day-over-day open-interest deltas with specific output components: per-contract OI changes, top-N sorted by absolute magnitude, and call/put aggregate totals. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_option_chain or get_flow_scan.

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 explicit use cases: 'track new positioning, unwinding, and block print intent from OI shifts.' It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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