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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses Monte Carlo pricing on live Deribit implied vol, the output bundle, a free preview, and the $0.02 USDC x402 payment path. It still does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or exact preview 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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and main outputs, and most sentences earn their place. The only clear waste is the repeated pricing statement: 'Free preview; full quote $0.02 USDC...' followed by 'Costs $0.02 USDC (x402).'

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 complex pricing tool with no output schema and a nested term-sheet parameter, the description lists the key return components and points to the term-sheet schema. It leaves some operational details sparse around the x402 payment and preview flow, but is broadly complete enough to call the tool.

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%, and the schema itself provides a detailed term-sheet example plus a reference to `/schema/term-sheet.json`, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds product-type context but no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a precise verb+resource (structured-note pricing for crypto) and enumerates supported products, underlyings, and outputs. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling tools `preview_note` and `market_snapshot`, though the paid full-quote scope is clear.

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?

It tells the agent to send a JSON term sheet and mentions free preview versus full quote, implying when the tool is used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as `preview_note` or state when to use this tool instead of a preview or market snapshot.

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