Option Risk Map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — the output is unsigned and deliberately makes no dealer-direction claim — but says nothing about data source requirements, latency, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier arrives before any elaboration. Nothing in it is redundant.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 10 configuration parameters at 0% schema coverage and 3 required inputs, the description leaves far too much for the agent to guess about symbol/expiry formats and how the optional pricing knobs behave.

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 description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Only a faint hint exists that open interest matters (via 'OI-weighted'), leaving symbol format, expiry format, risk_free_rate, strike bounds, spot_override, dividend_yield and contract_multiplier entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 verb ('Map') and resource ('OI-weighted gamma concentration') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('unsigned', 'without inferring dealer direction') that separates it from directional-analysis siblings like option_positioning_summary. It is jargon-dense but an agent can tell what it produces.

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 indication of when to choose this over option_greeks, option_positioning_summary, or option_surface_summary, and no preconditions stated. The 'without inferring dealer direction' clause implies a boundary but never names an alternative or a selecting condition.

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