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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real value beyond them: the 'Pro' tag signals an access/subscription prerequisite, and it clarifies that session defaults to the latest trading day.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the resource and granularity, followed by a short usage cue and default/access notes. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully previews the return shape (by strike/expiry, calls/puts/net) and covers the session default. It falls short only on dte_filter, whose filtering behavior is left unexplained.

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 67%: ticker and session are documented, but dte_filter carries only an enum with no prose. The description restates the session default but never explains dte_filter's semantics, so it does little to compensate for the gap. Baseline 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?

States a specific resource (dealer gamma, charm, vanna exposure) with explicit breakdowns by strike, expiry, and calls/puts/net. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling gex_levels by positioning as the more detailed 'beyond the key GEX levels' view.

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?

Gives clear context: 'Use for detailed hedging-flow analysis beyond the key GEX levels,' which implicitly routes the agent away from gex_levels for high-granularity needs. It lacks an explicit when-not rule (e.g. prefer gex_levels for headline levels), so it stops short of 5.

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