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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is advisory, has liquidity gates, and does not auto-execute — useful behavioral context — but it does not explicitly state read-only status, data freshness, or response behavior beyond the existing output schema.

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 short sentences deliver the key point and the most important caveat with no filler. The advisory stance is front-loaded and the anti-execution warning is immediately actionable.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, timeframe, single-name scope, liquidity gating, and non-execution. The only minor gap is that 'liquidity gates' is not expanded, but the output schema can carry that detail.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed.

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 identifies a specific resource — a single-name 0DTE Friday board — and its advisory nature. It is clear enough to distinguish from execution-oriented siblings like plan_robinhood_entry, though it does not explicitly contrast with related get_* board tools.

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 conveys when to use it (Friday, single-name 0DTE context) and explicitly warns it is not auto-exec, which tells the agent not to route it to execution. However, it does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions relative to siblings.

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