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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (FIRM's own capture), sorting behavior, mandatory date, and hints at the large table size (70 GB). This is useful but it does not cover request limits, pagination, authentication, or the exact return shape beyond listing a few fields. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then usage guidance, then a critical data constraint. Every sentence provides distinct value: what it does, when to use it, and a key limitation. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Considering there is no output schema, the description explains the return fields (premium, strike, expiry, block/sweep flags), sorting, and source. It also gives the mandatory date and archive start, helping agents avoid full-table scans. It does not mention if there is a timestamp field for intraday filtering, despite the implication of 'around a specific time', but this is a minor gap for a tool of this scope.

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 20% (only ticker has a placeholder description). The description adds meaning by mentioning 'per-print premium (notional_usd)' which helps interpret min_premium, and 'sorted largest premium first' which relates to limit. However, it does not explain side, the format of date, or clearly connect min_premium to premium filtering. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 raw options trade prints for one underlying on one trading day, with specific fields like premium, strike, expiry, and block/sweep flags, sorted by largest premium first. This distinguishes it from flow-signal tools by emphasizing 'raw' and 'actual options tape', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use when an agent needs the actual options tape behind a flow signal: whale prints, sweep activity, what struck around a specific time.' It also notes that date is mandatory and mentions the archive start date, which is a practical prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the top tier.

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