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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already provide safety info. The description adds useful behavioral context: live P&L, inclusion of funding in unrealized P&L, and the list of returned fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by bulleted fields. Every word adds value, no fluff.

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, so return values are covered externally. The description clearly explains what the tool does and the key fields, which is sufficient given the simple parameter set (2 params, 1 required) and the existing annotations.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'caller_id' parameter (which has a default) or the 'wallet_address' format. It only implies 'for a wallet', which hints at wallet_address but does not fully compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states the tool lists open perp positions for a wallet with live P&L, and enumerates specific fields (market, side, size, prices, P&L). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'perp_positions_all' (likely broader scope).

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 for checking a specific wallet's positions but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., perp_positions_all, perp_funding_rates). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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