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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the verdict is a 'disclosed-heuristic', contracts come from a 'real fetched chain', and contracts are 'never invented'. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or freshness guarantees, so not a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the main action and then qualifies the contract-selection behavior. It is dense but every clause (real strike/expiration/bid-ask/greeks, never invented) carries information. Slightly heavy em-dash phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description should do more to explain the returned structure – for example whether it returns a single verdict plus one contract, a list of contracts, or confidence metadata. It also leaves the 'target delta band' ambiguous since no corresponding input exists. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 both parameters (ticker, timeHorizon) are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail and introduces a 'target delta band' that does not map to any input parameter, which could confuse an agent about how the delta target is supplied.

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 states specific verbs and resources: it generates a BUY/SELL/HOLD verdict and selects real listed option contracts nearest a target delta band from a fetched chain. An agent can distinguish this from pure analysis siblings because it combines a signal with concrete contract selection. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'trade execution signals' – there is no explicit 'use when' context, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as the volatility-surface or microstructure tools. The agent can infer this is for actionable trade ideas, but must guess the boundaries.

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