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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the aggregation filter (not full tape), the single-symbol scope, the specific metrics included, and the ~75-day historical range, offering rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'get history' description.

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 well-structured sentences, starting with the core purpose and then adding detail (metrics, length, use case). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description lists the output fields (volume, premium, C/P ratios, IV, delta, streak) and explains the data source and aggregation, making it complete for understanding the tool without needing to guess.

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% with clear descriptions for symbol, limit, date_from, and date_to. The tool description adds some context (one symbol, ~75 trading days) but does not explain parameter semantics beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score 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 provides an end-of-day time series of unusual options flow for a single symbol, aggregated from contracts passing the unusual filter. It distinguishes this from a full tape and from sibling tools like get_symbol_flow or get_unusual_activity by emphasizing the historical and filtered nature.

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 includes a concrete example ('how has unusual flow on NVDA developed?') and notes the series is behind back-tests, which implies usage for historical analysis. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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