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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds the scope of 'current or historical' and mentions filter options, but it does not disclose response ordering, pagination behavior beyond schema, or any other operational details. For a read-only tool with strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 communicates the purpose and key features without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the trigger condition and immediately conveys the core functionality.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema covers all parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the purpose and typical use case. It could be slightly improved by pointing to an alternative for retrieving positions of a specific trader, but that is not essential for completeness.

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%, and each parameter (limit, offset, source, status, symbol) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description simply mentions that filtering by status, source, or symbol is optional, which aligns with the schema but does not add new meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool returns smart-money positions (current or historical) with optional filters for status, source, or symbol. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (positions), and the mention of filters distinguishes it from other tools like get_trader_position_history or get_signals.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('when the user asks for current or historical smart-money positions'), providing clear context. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, but that is acceptable given the sibling tool names are quite distinct (e.g., get_trader_position_history for a specific trader).

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