Option contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: results may be truncated and persisted rather than returned inline, yielding a result_id. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its field list, then the critical storage/result_id behavior. The parenthetical field inventory is long but each item is informative. No filler or tautology.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned contract fields, plus the result_id/truncation workflow. Pagination via page_token is left to the schema, which documents it adequately, so the definition is close to self-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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most filters, and the description largely restates the same filter set (underlyings, expiration exact or from/to, type, style, strike range, root). It adds minor clarification (strike in USD, deliverables on request) but nothing about default semantics such as the active-only status default.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Listed option contracts') and enumerates the returned fields (OCC symbol, underlying, expiration, strike, type, style, multiplier, open interest, last close), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling reference_option_contract or from options_chain, which an agent scanning the tool list would need.

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?

It names a concrete downstream alternative and the condition that selects it: large results are stored, and the returned result_id should be queried with results_query. It also states 'deliverables on request,' implying when to set show_deliverables. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over options_chain or reference_option_contract.

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