get_option_expiration_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states it fetches data. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, data freshness, or potential errors (e.g., invalid ticker).

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and specify the parameter. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one simple parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the input and purpose. However, missing behavioral details like whether ticker must be a stock or ETF slightly reduce completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the ticker parameter as 'the ticker symbol of the stock to get option expiration dates for, e.g. 'AAPL''. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type string.

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 action 'Fetch', the resource 'options expiration dates', and the required input 'ticker symbol'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_option_chain which likely retrieves options chains.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't compare with get_option_chain or note if the ticker must be listed.

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