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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, sorting options, or the structure of returned positions.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, this single sentence does not earn its place as useful guidance.

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?

With no output schema, four parameters, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, position fields, or how pagination and sorting work, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 50% (only limit and offset have descriptions; sortBy and sortOrder lack them). The description provides zero parameter information and does not compensate for the undocumented sort parameters, leaving their meaning and defaults unexplained.

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 'Get user's Polymarket positions' states a specific verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from event/market listing tools. However, it does not clarify its relationship to similarly-named siblings like getAllPositions or listPositions, so it lacks explicit 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description relies entirely on the tool name and does not explain which sibling tools are better for other scenarios, such as fetching all positions or finding a specific position.

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