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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds meaningful interpretive context, explaining that the levels act as magnet/support/resistance driven by dealer gamma. This adds value beyond the structured hints, although it doesn't discuss output format or edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavioral meaning, then a concrete example. Every sentence contributes without redundancy or fluff, and the example is placed at the end for easy scanning.

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 the tool's low complexity, two simple string parameters, and rich annotations, this description is largely complete. It explains the kind and origin of the returned levels, though it does not spell out an output schema or return structure. For a description that must stand without an output schema, this is sufficient for correct invocation and elementary result interpretation.

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%, so both symbol and _apiKey are fully described there, and the schema even includes examples. The description's example repeats the invocation but does not introduce any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get key options-derived levels for an underlying' and names the exact level types (gamma flip, call wall, put wall). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like flashalpha_gex, greeks, and iv even without explicitly naming them.

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 you need those level types, and it gives an invocation example. However, it does not state when to use it versus alternative flashalpha tools or when not to use it, so the guidance relies on inference rather than explicit direction.

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