option_list_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation ('List available data dates') and includes a '[FREE]' tag, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the '[FREE]' tag and immediately states the purpose. There is no wasted wording, and every word contributes meaning. This is highly efficient for an agent consuming the description.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and required parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps such as the return format of the date list and whether all historical dates are included. Given the simplicity of a date-listing tool, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema thoroughly documents all five parameters. The description adds marginal value by naming three key parameters (symbol, request type, expiration) but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already defines. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List available data dates for an option by symbol, request type, and expiration.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('available data dates'), and specifies the key filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like option_list_symbols and option_list_expirations, which serve different listing purposes.

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?

The description implies usage by identifying the required input parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided. However, the tool's name and description make its purpose clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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