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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose ranking behavior and the score basis ('Vol/OI weighted by premium'), but it does not mention defaults, response shape, or side-effect-related details. It is honest but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler. The core output and ranking behavior are front-loaded, and the usage context is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only addresses scope and ranking. It omits guidance about optional filters, date range behavior, limit semantics, and how it relates to siblings like get_unusual_activity or get_top_prints, leaving the agent under-equipped for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, and four parameters (type, limit, min_voloi, min_premium) have no schema descriptions. The tool description adds only a vague tie-in to 'premium' and does not explain these optional filters, ranges, or limits, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 what the tool returns: 'Every unusual contract on a single ticker, ranked by score.' It also indicates the scope with 'one specific stock,' which separates it from broader siblings like get_unusual_activity, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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?

It gives explicit context: 'Use when the question is about one specific stock's unusual options flow.' This is clear and actionable, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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