option_list_strikes

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: 'Updated overnight' indicates data freshness, and '[FREE]' indicates no cost. However, it does not disclose other potentially important behaviors such as output format, ordering, or rate limits, leaving the description only partially transparent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the core function and update frequency, though it does not elaborate on return details. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both required parameters (symbol and expiration), so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely restates the parameters without adding additional meaning, syntax, or context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 function: 'List available strikes for an option symbol and expiration.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguished from sibling list tools like option_list_symbols, option_list_dates, and option_list_contracts.

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 when strikes are needed for a given symbol and expiration, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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