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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, lowering the bar. Beyond them the description adds real value: it discloses exactly what each detail level returns, that tpsl_triggers are included, and the chaining IDs for close_perp_position and set_perp_tpsl. No auth or rate-limit context is given.

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?

Purpose and the venue aggregation rule are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The detail paragraph is information-dense with nested parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability, but every sentence carries distinct information.

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 listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the field-projection rules and cross-tool ID chaining an agent needs. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well for the two meaningful parameters: venue=None is defined as aggregation, and detail is defined with exact field lists for 'concise' vs 'full'. Only caller_id is left unexplained, a minor gap.

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+resource ('Open perp positions for a wallet') and adds a scope clause ('venue=None aggregates across venues') that hints at the all-venues distinction from the sibling perp_positions. It never explicitly names perp_positions as the single-venue alternative, so an agent must infer the split from the '_all' name.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains the detail-level choice and that position_id chains into close_perp_position and request_id chains into set_perp_tpsl, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' guidance versus perp_positions or other position readers.

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