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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral details such as return format quirks, pagination, or what 'position' includes, but the annotations lower the bar and the description aligns with them.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function without any filler or redundancy. It earns its place perfectly.

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 getter with well-defined parameters and safety annotations, the description is sufficiently complete to guide invocation. There is no output schema, but the tool conceptually returns a position; the description doesn't detail the return structure, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward lookup.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (userAddress and format) with clear descriptions, and says format has enum json/markdown. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool gets a user's lending and borrowing position in the money market, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('user position'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_transactions (transactions not positions) and get_asset_borrowers (asset-level, not user-level).

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when you need a specific user's money market position, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it over sibling tools, but it lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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