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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds substantive context beyond that: the $50K+ 'unusual' threshold, the dual live-vs-recorded mode switch, and the returned fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the resource and return fields, the second clarifies the mode behavior. The core purpose is front-loaded with zero 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 compensates by listing return fields (contract, side, size, day volume, open interest, timestamp). Modes and filter effects are covered. Minor gaps: limit's effect on print count and any ordering/pagination behavior are not described.

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 covers days, symbol, and minPremium (75% coverage); limit has no schema description. The description adds meaning by tying filters to behavior — any of symbol/days/minPremium flips the query from live tape to historical search — and anchors minPremium to the $50K+ unusual threshold. Limit semantics remain unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 ('Get') and a well-defined resource: large options prints (sweeps, blocks, $50K+ premium) with the returned fields enumerated. This is clearly distinct from sibling market.options_chain, which would return the full chain rather than unusual flow.

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?

Explains the two operating modes concretely: no filters returns the live tape, while a symbol, a day window, or a premium floor triggers a search of recorded prints. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the filter-vs-no-filter guidance is actionable for an agent deciding how to call it.

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