get_option_expiration_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits: only that it 'lists' expiry dates and is limited to certain asset types. No mention of output format, error handling, authentication, or data freshness.

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?

Description is very concise (one sentence with Chinese translation), front-loaded with verb. However, it might be too brief, missing potentially useful details.

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 low complexity but no output schema and 0% schema coverage, description is incomplete. Does not explain return value format, whether dates are future-only, or any constraints beyond asset type.

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 has single parameter 'underlying' with no description; description adds that it applies to HK/US stocks/ETF/index only. This gives partial meaning but does not specify format or allowed values.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists option expiration dates, specifies verb 'List' and resource 'option expiration dates', and adds asset type constraints (HK/US stocks/ETF/index only). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_option_chain.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_option_chain or get_option_underlying. The description only provides asset type restrictions without context of workflow.

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