scan_pmcc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'scans' and 'analyzes' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects (if any) exist. While scanning is implicitly non-destructive, this is not stated explicitly.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, a brief analysis-criteria list, and an Arg list. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff 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?

For a moderately complex tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, analysis criteria, and parameter semantics. It does not describe the return format or what a 'suitable' result looks like, but the absence of an output schema and the clear functional scope make this a minor gap.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly with an Args block. It explains that symbols are comma-separated, defines each delta/days parameter with defaults, and adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property names and default values.

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 and resource: 'Scan symbols for Poor Man's Covered Call suitability.' It clearly names the strategy (PMCC) and the criteria analyzed (delta, liquidity, spread tightness, IV, yield), which distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like scan_bullish.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does (suitability scan for PMCC) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative scanning tools or mention any exclusions. The criteria imply usage, but no alternatives or when-not scenarios are provided.

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