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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it states the annualized-yield metric is price-independent, explains exactly how upside is capped and how the floor is computed, and flags the non-textbook coin-denominated premium behavior. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

Purpose and both strategy branches are front-loaded, and the return fields are enumerated at the end. It is dense and the parenthetical formula asides are verbose, but for a multi-metric strategy workflow most of the detail earns its place rather than padding.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating staticYieldPct, annualizedYieldPct, valueAtScenarioUsd, breakevenPrice, floorValueUsd, and vsHoldingUsd. An agent has enough to call it and interpret results; only the exact field types/units per output are unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including the strategy enum and premium direction. The description adds formula-level meaning (premium scaling, floor/breakeven semantics) but little per-parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource pair, naming both supported strategies (covered call, protective put) and the underlying (Deribit BTC/ETH position). The two strategies are clearly distinguished from siblings like run_straddle_strangle, run_spread_payoff, and run_options_payoff by their long-coin-plus-short-call / long-put structure.

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 trigger phrases ('what annualized yield do I get selling covered calls on my BTC?' and 'how much does insuring my BTC with a put cost me?'), which directly maps user intent to the two strategy enum values. It does not, however, name when to prefer a sibling (e.g., options_payoff) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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