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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main contribution is the scope limitation that only Nyria-originated positions appear. That is a genuinely useful behavioral caveat an agent could not get from the structured fields. It stops short of saying whether values are live or snapshot, or whether results are ordered or paginated.

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, both load-bearing: the first states scope and output fields up front, the second states the exclusion. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by naming the five fields. Minor gaps remain around ordering, empty-state behavior, and whether prices are real-time, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description instead spends its words on the return shape (account, instrument, side, quantity, average price), which is appropriate for a parameterless read.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Show open positions") plus the exact scope ("on each broker account that has a bot on this strategy") and enumerates the returned fields: account last 4, instrument, side, filled quantity, average price. It never names a sibling, so the distinction from nyria_recent_orders or nyria_order_status must be inferred from the word "positions".

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 an implicit coverage rule — "Covers positions Nyria opened; trades placed outside Nyria are not listed" — which tells the agent when results will be incomplete. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over nyria_recent_orders or nyria_order_status, leaving selection to inference from the noun.

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