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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: positions are public, pagination uses an opaque cursor, and Google sign-in authorizes access but does not identify a wallet. These are auth and data-scope details that an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action, then add the critical auth caveat. The alias note earns its place by resolving the duplicate sibling name, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 12-parameter tool, it covers the highest-risk facts: the wallet must be explicit, Google sign-in does not provide it, and pagination is opaque. With an output schema present and most filter names/enums self-describing, the main remaining gap is optional filter semantics like mergeable, redeemable, and title.

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 17%, and the description does not compensate. It mostly echoes the two already-described params (walletAddress and cursor) while leaving limit, offset, sortBy, sortDirection, eventIds, conditionIds, mergeable, redeemable, sizeThreshold, and title without any added meaning.

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-object pair ('Get current public Polymarket positions') and scopes it to an explicit proxy wallet address, making the resource and scope unambiguous. The phrase 'current' plus the alias note distinguishes it from sibling wallet tools like get_wallet_pnl, get_wallet_activity, and get_closed_positions without requiring those schemas to be opened.

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 states the central precondition: the tool requires an explicit proxy wallet address, and Google sign-in does not supply one. This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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