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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the model (Black-Scholes, European) and the units for each Greek (per 1% vol, per day, per 1% rate), which clarifies output semantics beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the greeks with units. Every word earns its place, with 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?

Given a rich input schema, a present output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does, its scope (European option), and the output greeks with units, so the agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: computing Black-Scholes greeks for a European option. It lists the specific greeks (delta, gamma, vega, theta, rho) with their units, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like black-scholes (likely price) 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 usage when Greek values are needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it does not direct users to black-scholes for option pricing, leaving differentiation to inference.

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