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 useful behavioral detail: opaque cursor pagination and the requirement for an explicit proxy wallet address, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand call expectations.

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, direct sentences with no filler. The alias relationship is front-loaded and the core purpose follows immediately. Slightly more structure could add filtering info, but the current form is clean and efficient.

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 tool with 8 parameters, output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the high-level purpose and key constraints (closed positions, proxy wallet, cursor pagination). However, it leaves parameter semantics to a sparse schema, and given the low schema description coverage, an agent may not know how to use filters like eventIds or conditionIds. The existence of an output schema covers return values, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 only 25% (cursor and walletAddress have descriptions). The description mentions opaque cursor and proxy wallet, but the other six parameters (limit, offset, sortBy, eventIds, conditionIds, sortDirection) are undocumented in both the schema and description. This leaves a significant gap that the description does not compensate for.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get closed public Polymarket positions and realized PnL') and explicitly identifies itself as an alias of polymarket_get_closed_positions, which differentiates it from siblings like get_wallet_positions. An agent can accurately determine what this tool does and how it relates to its sibling.

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: it is for closed positions, realized PnL, and requires an explicit proxy wallet address. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the alias, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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