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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the behavioral filter 'Excludes past expirations,' but does not describe return format or ordering, so it stays at the calibration baseline.

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 two sentences plus a clear Args section. It front-loads the core action, includes the essential exclusion filter, and gives a workflow hint – no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the parameter, and its role in an options-chain workflow. There are no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits to disclose, so nothing important is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section defines ticker as 'Underlying ticker (e.g. 'AAPL')', giving both a definition and an example. This goes beyond the schema's bare type and is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 'List future expiration dates for a ticker's listed options' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_options_chain or get_options_contract, which operate on the chain or individual contracts.

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 provides a clear workflow directive: 'Use the result as input to get_options_chain.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and how it fits into a larger operation. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that a competent agent would not confuse it.

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