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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned ('one position in full') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the hash is not found, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the resource and the key identifier. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple lookup tool with one fully documented parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without details on the return structure or error behavior. 'In full' is vague and does not specify what fields are included.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the hash parameter fully. The description adds the '32-byte' context, which is technically redundant with the schema's '64 hex characters' but reinforces the format. No additional semantic value beyond the schema 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 identifies the resource (a single position) and the identifier (32-byte strategy hash), and it implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling trdefi_positions by focusing on one position in full. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trdefi_positions. The description only implies that a hash is required, but does not explain how to obtain one or when a full detail lookup is appropriate. There are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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