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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds valuable behavioral context about HTTP 503 responses when upstream data is unavailable, SLA pricing, and provenance disclosure via data_source field—all beyond the 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?

The description is mostly efficient but contains redundant statements about HTTP 503 behavior (appears twice). It is front-loaded with purpose and key details, but the duplication makes it slightly less polished than ideal.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the key metrics returned (IV, put/call ratio, fear/greed, term structure, VIX) and mentions the data_source field for provenance. It also covers failure modes and SLA. This is fairly complete for a data-retrieval tool, though minor details like units are omitted.

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?

The schema has one parameter `asset` with enum values BTC/ETH/all, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions BTC and ETH in the metric list, which implies the asset selection, but it never directly explains the `asset` parameter or how to use it. The enum schema carries most of the burden, but the description adds some context about the covered assets.

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 it provides crypto options implied volatility benchmarks for BTC and ETH, listing specific metrics (7D/30D IV, put/call ratio, fear/greed, term structure, VIX). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling benchmark tools like TVL or yield.

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 says 'For options traders and volatility agents,' implying the target user but not explicitly stating when to prefer this over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or sibling comparisons, so usage context is only implied.

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