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

Annotations already mark this read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the yield metric is price-scenario independent, covered-call upside is capped by a coin-denominated premium that still scales with price, and the protective-put floor is the true minimum across all settlement prices. That is substantive disclosure the annotations do not carry.

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?

It is front-loaded with the strategy definition and the key yield metric before the scenario math, so the agent gets the gist immediately. The dense parenthetical formulas are informative but make it longer than strictly necessary, keeping it from a 5.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields (staticYieldPct, annualizedYieldPct, valueAtScenarioUsd, breakevenPrice, floorValueUsd, vsHoldingUsd). All 7 required params are documented, and the two strategy modes are explained, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is high (88%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema text lacks — it explains that the annualization uses 365/daysToExpiry, that spotEntry drives the covered-call breakeven, and that premium is coin-denominated and scales with scenarioPrice. This lifts it slightly above the schema-only baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource — computing covered-call yield / protective-put protection value for a Deribit BTC/ETH position — and explicitly distinguishes the two strategies it handles. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like run_options_payoff or run_spread_payoff from the text alone.

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 gives concrete trigger phrases ("what annualized yield do I get selling covered calls on my BTC?", "how much does insuring my BTC with a put cost me?"), which clearly establishes when to reach for it. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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