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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'all' scope, indicating a comprehensive listing, but provides no additional context about pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or return format. This is moderate value beyond annotations but not rich.

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, concise sentence: 'List all options underlying assets'. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and directly states the resource with no extraneous words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple, read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description accurately states the purpose, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. It doesn't explain what 'underlying assets' means in the options context or the response structure, but for a tool of this low complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs, and the scoring rule sets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not add any conflicting or confusing information.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and explicitly names the resource 'options underlying assets', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cex_options_list_options_contracts or cex_options_list_options_expirations. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action and resource, without mentioning use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no differentiation from the many similar list tools beyond the resource name, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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