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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the return format as a JSON array with entry/exit prices and PnL, and 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not mention empty results, authorization needs, or whether pending orders are included.

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 three short lines with no filler. The Args block is appropriately placed, and every sentence carries useful 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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient: it names the input and the return contract. It misses only optional niceties like empty-fund behavior or explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The Args block identifies fund_id as 'The fund's ID,' which adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema's title 'Fund Id.' It is sufficient for a single trivial parameter, but no additional context about format, source, or requiredness is provided.

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 'Get open positions for a fund's roster bots,' specifying both the action and the resource. The phrase 'open positions' distinguishes it from related trade and PnL tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_fund_trades, get_fund_live_pnl, or list_bots. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Get,' with no exclusions or alternative routing provided.

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