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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the data fields returned, which gives behavioral context about the output. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though 'status' implies it), nor does it mention any side effects, error handling, or authorization requirements. The description partially discloses behavior but leaves safety and failure aspects implicit.

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 concise – a single sentence listing the returned data, followed by a short parameter note. It is front-loaded with the most important information (what the tool does) and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what data is returned, how to scope it with positionId, and the default behavior. It does not address error cases (e.g., invalid positionId) or authentication, but these are likely acceptable gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It explains the single parameter well: it is optional, and omitting it returns all open positions. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare type definition.

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 verb ('status') and the resource ('hedged position(s)'), and lists specific data points (legs, avg prices, basis, PnL, margin/liq distance, threat level, funding countdown). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_hedge_positions (which likely focus on listing) and get_positions (which may cover all positions, not just hedged ones). The purpose 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?

The description gives clear usage guidance for the only parameter: 'positionId (optional — omit for all open positions)'. This tells the agent when to include the parameter and what happens if it's omitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like get_positions or list_hedge_positions, so no exclusions are stated. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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