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

The rich annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds value by specifying pagination behavior ('opaque cursor pagination') and clarifying the authentication limitation around Google sign-in, which is useful for callers deciding whether they can invoke the tool.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The key operation and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the auth/wallet caveat earns its place in the second because it directly affects how the tool must be invoked.

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?

The description covers the essential scope, wallet requirement, and pagination style, and the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, with 12 parameters and very low schema coverage, the lack of guidance on filtering, sorting, and pagination continuation leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to call the tool with advanced options.

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%: only cursor and walletAddress have descriptions, and the description mostly duplicates the walletAddress caveat already in the schema. The remaining ten parameters such as eventIds, conditionIds, mergeable, redeemable, sortBy, and sizeThreshold have no semantic explanation, and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 and resource: 'Get current public Polymarket positions', adds the scoping constraint of an explicit proxy wallet address, and mentions opaque cursor pagination. The word 'current' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_closed_positions and get_wallet_pnl.

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 establishes when this tool is applicable: current public positions for a specific proxy wallet. It also gives important operational context that Google sign-in does not identify a wallet, so callers must supply walletAddress explicitly. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when not to use it.

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