find_covered_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the catalyst-gating rule, that yields are computed from TIME VALUE only so ITM strikes are not inflated, and that max_risk/min_call_oi act as safety and liquidity gates. It stops short of stating read-only/non-mutating status or any rate/limitation behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 purpose and usage lines are front-loaded, followed by two sentences of behavioral context, then a compact parameter list. Given the 0% schema coverage, listing each argument is not redundant padding but the only place that information exists.

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 values need not be described. All six optional parameters are explained, defaults are visible in the schema, and the tool's screening logic and risk gates are stated, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it fully does: it supplies the enumerated values for week ('this', 'next', 'two', 'three', 'month', 'all') and for risk, explains what each risk level means for assignment likelihood, and gives ranges for max_risk (0-100) and limit (1-25). These are semantics the bare schema cannot provide.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Find covered-call candidates that have no hidden catalyst in the expiry window.' It also implicitly separates the tool from the sibling find_wheel_candidates by noting 'Same catalyst gating as the wheel scanner,' so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit usage context is given: 'Use this when someone asks what calls to sell against shares they own, for covered-call income ideas, or how to generate yield on a stock position.' However, it never names when NOT to use it (e.g., to use find_wheel_candidates for cash-secured puts, or scan_ticker for a single-name view), so the routing guidance is clear but not exclusive.

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