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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding real behavior: it warns when the oracle price is stale or the market is closed, and it promises exact on-chain math rather than an approximation. It stops short of saying how those warnings surface in the response (flag vs. error).

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what you get back, the second delivers the caveat. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the staleness/closed-market caveat, which is enough for an agent to call it. The remaining gap is the relationship between the optional mint parameters, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 all five parameters are documented in structured data and the baseline applies. The description hints at the collateral-deposit and minting paths but adds no disambiguation between mintTokens and mintValueUsdg or what happens when neither is supplied.

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?

Names the resource (a position quote) and enumerates the exact outputs: fee, collateral ratio, liquidation price, headroom, computed with the contracts' math at the current oracle price. Combined with 'Read-only' it implicitly separates itself from the many prepare_* mutation siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (a dry-run preview before depositing/minting), but the description never states when to call this versus get_position or the prepare_create_position/prepare_deposit siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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