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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the model (Black-Scholes) and noting that higher-order greeks are returned where applicable, which gives the agent a better expectation of behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is short. The example is mildly redundant with the provided schema examples, but it is still useful as a quick invocation template. No waste is significant enough to drop below a 4.

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?

For a calculator tool with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it lists primary output, identifies the pricing model, and includes a runnable example. Since there is no output schema, the fact that it names delta, gamma, theta, and vega is exactly the kind of added context needed. It could be more explicit about optional parameters and behavior variations, so it falls just short of a 4.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It restates the core concepts (spot, strike, dte, vol, and type) but adds no meaning beyond the schema; the optional 'rate' param is left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb-resource combination: a Black-Scholes 'option greeks calculator' and concretely lists the outputs (delta, gamma, theta, vega). This clearly differentiates it from sibling flashalpha tools like flashalpha_iv, flashalpha_gex, and flashalpha_levels without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to call it: whenever BSM option greeks are needed, with spot, strike, dte, vol, and type. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for implied volatility use flashalpha_iv'), so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select the tool.

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