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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the historical/current scope and filter capabilities, but does not describe return format or pagination behavior. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the added context brings it to a moderate level.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the trigger ('Use this when') and fills in scope and filters. No wasted words.

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 rich schema (all params with descriptions), strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use context. It lacks an explicit contrast with get_trader_position_history, which would make it more complete in a sibling-rich environment.

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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description repeats the filter dimensions (status, source, symbol) without adding new meaning or format details, so it lands at the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 clearly specifies the tool retrieves smart-money positions, with scope (current/historical) and filter dimensions (status, source, symbol). This distinguishes it from the more specific sibling get_trader_position_history, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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: use when the user asks for current or historical smart-money positions, with optional filters. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the trigger condition and scope are well-defined.

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