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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the detail that both open and closed positions are returned, which is a behavioral trait beyond the tool name. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the response format or any other characteristics, leaving room for more transparency.

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 no filler. It immediately states the core function and the scope (open and closed) in a concise manner. Every word adds value, making it an exemplary structure.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It specifies the resource (hedged positions) and scope (user's, open and closed). While it does not outline the return format, this is a minor omission for such a basic operation, and the description covers the essential context an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is clearly 100% and there is no parameter information to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation. It is entirely satisfactory in this dimension.

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's function: it lists all hedged positions for the user, explicitly including both open and closed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_positions (likely all positions) and close_hedged_position (an action). The phrasing is specific and 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_positions or open_hedged_position, nor does it specify any conditions or contrasting scenarios. An agent receives no direction on selecting this tool for a particular need.

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