get_options_expirations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little beyond restating that the result is a list of expiration dates; it says nothing about data freshness, market coverage, or whether expired dates are included. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns scaffolding is conventional and slightly redundant with the output schema, but nothing is bloated.

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 explaining return values is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is any routing guidance relative to get_options_chain, in a sibling set with many overlapping options-related tools. Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent choosing between options tools.

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%, so the description does supply the only parameter's meaning ('Stock ticker symbol'). However, it adds nothing about accepted formats, case sensitivity, or exchange-qualified symbols, which matters for an open-world ticker lookup. Minimal but functional compensation 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 ('Get all available options expiration dates'), so an agent can immediately tell this is an expiration-date lister rather than a full chain or quote tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, get_options_chain, which keeps it from a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_options_chain. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery step before fetching a chain.

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