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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by listing what comes back (方向/数量/开仓价/未实现盈亏) and flagging that the call is free. It does not discuss pagination or freshness of the position data, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with a bracketed category tag, then the core query, then the critical warning, then the return summary and cost. Every element earns its place, though the bold markup and parenthetical cost tag add visual noise rather than information density.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, input provenance, and return fields, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (pagination, freshness, behavior when the ID belongs to a stopped strategy) are minor for this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries its own description, so the schema baseline applies. The description does add provenance for the ID value, which is genuinely useful semantics beyond the schema, but it repeats the 'ID is required / strategy-level' fact already present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (查询实盘策略的持仓) plus the granularity (策略级, keyed by live strategy ID), which is enough to separate it from account-level reads. It does not name the closest sibling, platform_positions, explicitly, so the agent still has to infer the account-vs-strategy split.

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 ⚠️ block gives the key prerequisite for correct invocation: the ID must come from qd_strategies_trading / GET /api/cex/strategies, not the strategies table in the market or subscription domain. That is real when-to-use/where-to-get-the-input guidance, but it stops short of an explicit 'use platform_positions instead when you want account-level data' routing statement.

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