sample_vol_surface

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose two things: the input is validated then forwarded, and the ``summary`` reports vol_id, vol type, and grid sizes. It says nothing about auth needs, cost/rate limits, or failure modes for what is a compute-style POST operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then supporting detail; no filler sentences. The backtick-heavy jargon and route reference make it slightly dense for its length, but every clause adds information.

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 spelled out, and the body description is adequate for a passthrough endpoint. But with zero annotations and an opaque body schema, the definition leaves permission, cost, and error behavior unspecified for a POST compute tool.

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% and the body is just additionalProperties:true, so the description usefully reveals the body's expected shape (``pricing`` carrying the surfaces, plus ``queries``). However, the second parameter (request_id) is never mentioned, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Sample volatility surfaces on a grid") plus the underlying HTTP route, which clearly separates it from pricing/calibration siblings like calibrate_swaption_vol or price_swaption. The core action is unambiguous, though it doesn't name a specific sibling it could be confused with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative among the siblings. It defers entirely to "see the ``volsample_*`` examples," which is a pointer rather than guidance and references identifiers that don't appear in the sibling list.

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