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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the v4-only constraint, the item-level scope, and the returned data concepts: principal, accrued interest, and withdrawable amount.

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 compact, front-loads the critical 'v4 only' constraint, and every sentence earns its place by conveying scope, data contents, and a required parameter source.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the key returned fields (principal, accrued interest, withdrawable) and connects the main parameter to its source tool. Minor details like the default side are left to the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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%, so the schema fully documents user, spokeId, side, and version. The description reinforces the spokeId source but does not add significant parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 individual position items' and 'the individual supplies or borrows inside one v4 spoke.' It clearly differentiates itself from get_user_positions by stating the per-spoke aggregate 'cannot show' item-level details.

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?

It explicitly says this is v4 only, tells the agent to obtain 'spokeId' from get_user_positions, and explains that the per-spoke aggregate cannot show this level of detail. This makes the selection between this tool and get_user_positions unambiguous.

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