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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the lagged academic archive (2011 slice, 3,956 names), the standardized interpolation nature of the data, and the default behavior of omitting date. It also notes resolution via the link table. While it doesn't cover rate limits or error conditions, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return format, use case, parameter semantics, and sibling differentiation. It front-loads the key identity ('standardized implied-vol SURFACE') and wastes no words. Despite its length, it remains scannable and actionable.

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 no output schema, the description is responsible for conveying return semantics. It does so conceptually: 'for each maturity and delta node, per call/put the interpolated implied volatility and its dispersion.' It also covers default date behavior and the difference from the raw chain. However, it stops short of describing the exact response structure (field names, nesting), and it omits the limit parameter's effect, leaving minor gaps in a otherwise complete picture.

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 low (25%—only ticker has a description). The description compensates by explaining the date parameter ('omit date for the latest-available surface... pass date=YYYY-MM-DD') and the days parameter with explicit allowed values (30/60/91/182/365). It does not explain the limit parameter, but the schema provides defaults and bounds, making this a reasonable, if not complete, compensation.

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 the tool returns a standardized implied-vol surface for a company, resolving a ticker to an internal ID. It specifies the exact deliverable (per maturity and delta node, per call/put IV and dispersion) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the raw chain sibling tool, /intel/options_chain. This is a specific verb+resource+scope definition.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool—'to read a name's vol smile or how implied vol changes across expiries'—and provides an exclusion: 'Standardized grid, NOT the raw chain — for live per-contract quotes use /intel/options_chain.' It also explains the optional date and days parameters for controlling the surface, making usage context clear.

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