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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists the output fields (strike, expiry, volume, OI, IV, delta, sector, premium), which tells the agent what to expect. It does not mention data freshness or rate limits, but for a read-only scanner this is reasonably transparent.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, filters, and output/use case. Every sentence carries meaningful information, and it is front-loaded with the most important details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively covers the tool's purpose, filter capabilities, output columns, and a sample question. It does not explain every parameter individually, but the schema handles that. Overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters ('symbols, side and thresholds') and explicitly naming Vol/OI ratio, premium, IV, and days-to-expiration, which map to the parameters. The example question ties parameters to a real use case, going beyond the schema.

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 performs a 'contract-level unusual options activity scan across 7,000+ US stocks'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_symbol_flow or get_top_prints. It even names the dataset behind OptionsBell alerts, giving extra context.

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 a concrete usage example ('Use for questions like ...'), which gives clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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