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 covered. The description adds pagination and sorting behavior ('paginated, sorted by market value'), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose details like default limit behavior or cursor semantics, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key behaviors (household scope, pagination, sorting). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has an output schema, which likely documents return values, and annotations cover safety. The description covers the essential purpose and key behaviors. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations, the agent may not know how to construct a valid request (e.g., what cursor format to use, whether household_id is required). The description is adequate but not complete for a 3-parameter tool with no parameter docs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters (limit, cursor, household_id). The description only mentions 'household' and 'paginated', which hints at household_id and cursor/limit, but it doesn't explicitly explain the meaning of each parameter, the format of cursor, or the default behavior. This is a significant gap given zero schema descriptions.

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: 'Positions for a household, paginated, sorted by market value.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and its scope (household positions). It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_portfolio_drift or list_accounts, but the resource 'positions' is distinct enough among the siblings.

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 implies usage context: it returns positions for a household, so an agent can infer it should be used when household positions are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_portfolio_drift or list_accounts, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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