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

Annotations already declare the tool to be read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, but it also does not contradict the annotations. For a simple get operation, this is adequate, though it could mention response format or error behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it instantly scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of safety annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, no output schema exists, and the term 'details' is vague—it does not clarify what information will be returned or what 'single' means in terms of identifying the contract. A slightly richer description would improve completeness.

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 covers the single parameter 'contract' with a clear description ('Options contract name'). The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('options contract'), and scopes it to a single instance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cex_options_list_options_contracts, which would list multiple contracts.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios. While the word 'single' implies usage for a specific contract, there is no direct comparison to similar list/get tools.

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