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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, safety is already disclosed. The description adds valuable behavioral context: volatility and rates are in percent (not decimals), and the output includes d1/d2. It also specifies European-only scope, a key limitation. No contradictions with 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every clause contributes essential information: European scope, call/put, d1/d2, percent units, and optional dividend yield. There is no 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?

The tool is a 7-parameter pricing model with a rich schema and output schema present. The description covers the key model context and unit conventions. Minor details like per-share pricing are inferable or already documented in structured fields.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description only reiterates the optional dividend yield and percent convention already present in the schema, adding no new parameter-specific meaning.

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 computes the Black-Scholes price of European call/put options plus d1/d2. This specific verb+resource combination with the European scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like option-greeks and option-breakeven.

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 implies the applicable context: European options, Black-Scholes model, and inclusion of d1/d2. It does not explicitly exclude other option types or list alternatives, but the clear scope provides sufficient context for correct tool selection.

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