option_expiries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', which implies a read operation, but does not specify return format, sorting, limitations, or whether any special conditions apply. This minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 and front-loaded, with two clear sentences that cover the tool's purpose and parameter. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks information about the return format and does not address the existence of similar tools like 'ib_option_expiries'. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete for an agent to make a confident choice.

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 schema's 'symbol' parameter has no description, but the description's 'Args' section clarifies it as 'Ticker symbol'. This adds essential meaning, though it could be more specific about the expected format (e.g., uppercase, exchange suffix), making it clear but slightly incomplete.

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 it lists option expiration dates for a symbol, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'ib_option_expiries', which appears functionally similar, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'ib_option_expiries' or 'option_chain'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on choosing between similar tools.

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