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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses a 60s cache and the included data fields, which is useful. However, it claims 'every contract' while the schema includes a limit parameter (max 250), creating ambiguity about response size. It also does not disclose output structure, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by data details, use cases, and the cache note. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return value shape. It lists what data is included (Greeks, IV, OI, quote/trade) and primary use cases, which gives a good sense of the output. However, it doesn't describe the response structure, how the limit parameter affects results, or the 'every contract' vs limit discrepancy, leaving gaps for a complex options-chain 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 description coverage is only 25% and the ticker description is trivial ('Path parameter'). The description adds meaning for contract_type ('call/put side') and expiration_date ('expiry'), but limit is not explained at all. It partially compensates for low schema coverage but leaves the limit parameter (with default and max) semantically empty.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Options-chain snapshot for a ticker' with detailed data fields (Greeks, IV, open interest, last quote/trade). It clearly differentiates from siblings by declaring itself the 'PRIMARY tool' for gamma, IV smile, and max pain analysis, and by naming complementary tools like options_volume and gex.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use: 'PRIMARY tool for where's the gamma / IV smile / max pain by strike'. Also names related tools ('Pair with options_volume (flow) and gex (dealer positioning)'), giving clear guidance on selection. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement but the primary-tool framing implies exclusions.

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