options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds only the tickers requirement and indicator list, but no deeper behavior like error handling, return format, or rate limits, so it meets but doesn't exceed expectations.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and informative, but the long list of indicators duplicates the enum in the input schema, creating redundancy and length. This list adds bulk without explaining each indicator or its parameters.

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 39 parameters and 34 possible indicators, the description should explain which parameters apply to which indicator. It only provides a flat list of indicators and a ticker requirement; parameter-indicator mapping is left entirely to the schema, which has many tautological descriptions. An output schema exists but return semantics 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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds guidance on tickers ("Requires tickers='AAPL'") and lists indicators, but most parameters remain poorly explained with generic "Value for X" schema descriptions; the description does not compensate for the 30+ parameters.

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 explicitly states "Option pricing and Greeks (Black-Scholes model, binomial tree, delta, gamma, theta, vega, rho, implied volatility)", which clearly identifies the tool's domain and distinguishes it from broader siblings like volatility or models. It also enumerates 34 available indicators, making the scope concrete. However, it lacks an explicit verb, so it's not a 5.

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 gives clear usage context with "Requires tickers='AAPL' — use comma-separated values for multiple tickers," and lists the available indicators to choose from. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for a domain-specific tool.

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