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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine context by itemizing what the analysis surfaces (weekend gaps, USDG pause/freeze risk), which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not describe the output shape, but with no output schema that is the main remaining gap.

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, no filler. The risk-factor list comes first (what you get), the input modes second (how to call it) — correctly front-loaded for an agent deciding whether to invoke.

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 4-param, single-required-field read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete: it says what is analyzed and which parameters select which mode. Missing only edge-case behavior, such as precedence when both owner and hypothetical inputs are provided.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the per-parameter descriptions don't: that owner and collateral/debtTokens are alternative modes rather than independently combinable inputs. It does not resolve what happens if both modes are supplied simultaneously.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Plain-language risk for a position') and enumerates the exact risk dimensions covered: liquidation distance, weekend gaps, expiry, settlement rules, USDG pause and freeze risk. That scope distinguishes it cleanly from get_position (raw state) and quote_position (pricing) among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly defines the two invocation modes — pass 'owner' for a real position, or 'collateral' and 'debtTokens' for a hypothetical one — which is the key routing decision. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g., use get_position for raw numbers) or stating when this analysis is unnecessary.

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