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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no assumptions about the liquidation formula, maintenance margin, or what the returned value represents. No contradiction, but no added context either.

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 single line is front-loaded and contains no padding, which is good. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; the brevity comes at the cost of any useful detail.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description would need to explain the inputs and the computed result. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to verify units, formula assumptions, or what the return value means for a 3-parameter calculation tool.

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 0% and all three parameters are required, so the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the parameter names that the schema already exposes, without adding units, valid ranges, or whether 'leverage' is expressed as a multiplier or a fraction. No meaning beyond the schema.

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 phrase 'Liquidation price for a position' identifies the computed resource and the three inputs, so an agent can infer the tool's function. But it is a noun fragment with no verb and no differentiation from the sibling calc_position_size, which is also a calculation tool. Purpose is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling calc_position_size as an alternative. The agent must guess the context from the name alone.

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