Option Scenario

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that this is a BSM-model stress computation (a model output, not observed market data), which matters. It does not explain output scope (top_n rows, sort_by behavior) or how spot_override/days_forward interact.

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, which is good. However, for a 15-parameter model tool with no other documentation anywhere, one sentence is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not owed. But with 15 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no usage guidance, the description leaves an agent unable to determine which parameters are required, what units spot_change_pct or iv_change_points use, or when to choose this over option_greeks or option_risk_map.

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 15 parameters. The description names the three stress dimensions, which loosely maps to spot_change_pct, iv_change_points, and days_forward, but leaves the remaining twelve parameters (top_n, sort_by, strike bounds, option_type, min_open_interest, contract_multiplier, dividend_yield, spot_override, etc.) undocumented 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?

States a specific verb ('stress'), resource ('one option expiry'), the dimensions varied (spot, IV, time), and the pricing model (Black-Scholes-Merton). This distinguishes it from chain/greeks/surface siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to a sibling. An agent must infer that this is for scenario/stress analysis rather than live chain inspection. The description gives no exclusions despite seven related option tools being available.

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