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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Quotes are typically delayed ~15 minutes' and 'Greeks and implied volatility are not available from this data source,' which are not in the annotations and help set expectations.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence summary followed by necessary formatting details and behavioral caveats, then a simple Args line. Every sentence carries meaningful information, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what data is returned, how to format the parameter, and what limitations exist (delayed quotes, no Greeks/IV). This gives an agent all the context needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema already documents the contract_ticker parameter, the description adds deep semantic value by breaking down the OCC symbol format ('O: + underlying + YYMMDD + C/P + strike-in-thousandths-8-digits') and noting that the 'O:' prefix is optional. This goes beyond the schema's simple example and is essential for correctly constructing the ticker.

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 opens with 'Snapshot one OCC contract — price, OI, intraday OHLCV, last trade,' which uses a specific verb and resource and lists the returned data fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_options_chain (which covers a chain) and get_options_expirations (which covers expirations).

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 implies usage for a single contract snapshot ('Snapshot one OCC contract') but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as get_options_chain or get_options_unusual_trades. There is no when/when-not guidance, making the usage context clear but not explicit.

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