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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds important behavioral context: paper-trading only, not real money, disclaimer about investment advice, and a recommended prerequisite context. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's operational scope.

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?

Despite being more verbose than typical descriptions, it is well-structured with clear headers (Purpose, Triggers, When to call, Prerequisites, Next steps, Caveats, Disclaimer, Args). Every section adds distinct value, and the most critical info (purpose) is front-loaded. No redundant fluff.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage triggers, scenarios, prerequisites, next steps, caveats, and parameter details. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is fine. The description is fully self-sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains every parameter with examples and allowed values (e.g., market_id: crypto, kr_stock, us_stock; sort_by: profit_loss_pct, entry_timestamp, holding_duration, ai_score; sort_order: desc/asc), adding meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List current paper-trading positions' with explicit mention of filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_losing_positions and get_profitable_positions by being the general list, and the 'paper-trading' qualifier is a key differentiator.

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?

Provides extensive usage guidance: explicit example triggers, 'When to call' scenarios, prerequisites, next steps, and caveats. Though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context and sibling names make the appropriate use clear, and it states what the tool is NOT for (real money).

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