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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: Alpaca paper only for equities, virtual-by-design for perps/predictions, explicit equity read errors with no substituted virtual stock positions, and the agent-key auth requirement. This is meaningful disclosure, though it stops short of describing pagination or response shape.

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 the core identity ('YOUR positions, labeled by lane and source'), but the body is a choppy series of telegraphic fragments rather than clean sentences. It is dense with little waste but reads as terse notes.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers source labeling, per-asset-class behavior, error handling, and auth. The main omission is any explanation of how the optional competition parameter scopes the result, which is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so the single optional 'competition' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about that parameter, so the 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?

States the resource (positions) and scopes it with 'YOUR,' which implicitly distinguishes it from the generic get_positions sibling. However, it never names get_positions or get_my_portfolio, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated explicitly.

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 notes 'Agent key required' as a prerequisite but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never names an alternative. With get_positions, get_my_portfolio, and get_my_orders as close siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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