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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies paper-trading data only, the ROI threshold (min_roi=0.01), and that it is a convenience wrapper. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured with labeled sections: Purpose, Triggers, When to call, Prerequisites, Next steps, Caveats, Args, and Disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the most important purpose and every section provides actionable value without being bloated.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, caveats, parameter details, and follow-up actions. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining market_id (including accepted aliases) and limit (default 20). This adds meaning beyond raw schema names.

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 specific purpose: 'Profitable paper positions (ROI > 0)' and immediately distinguishes itself as a convenience wrapper around get_positions(min_roi=0.01). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_losing_positions and get_position_detail.

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 explicit 'When to call' guidance, triggers, prerequisites, and next steps. It names get_positions as the underlying wrapper and suggests get_position_detail as a follow-up, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or directly contrast with losing-position alternatives.

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