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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: reads public chain data via the Aletheia indexer, requires no signed authorisation, and explicitly warns that the chain is authoritative and a current-block transaction may not be indexed yet. It also describes the output structure, including 'settled_hidden', providing substantial transparency beyond a bare read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns every Gavel position...'), then elaborates on position contents, data source, and freshness, and ends with return format. Each sentence adds value, and while it is somewhat lengthy, the length is justified by the number of fields and caveats. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only query tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the returned object (address, network, positions[], count, settled_hidden), details what each position contains (lifecycle state, maturity, counterparty, next_action_available, lifecycle_summary), and explains the index lag caveat. It doesn't exhaustively list all lifecycle states but gives examples, and it covers the main edge case of hidden settled positions. Missing error handling details are minor for 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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (100% coverage): address specifies any valid Ethereum address and that it need not be the caller, and include_settled explains the default and effect. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('every Gavel position an address holds'), enumerating the three distinct roles (borrower, winning lender, bidder) and explicitly excluding settled auctions. This differentiates it from siblings like get_loan_status (single loan) and get_address_history (general history) without needing to open their schemas.

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 provides clear context: it is for fetching all positions of any address, with no auth required, and notes that the indexer may lag. It implies usage when a full position overview is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative (e.g., get_loan_status for a single loan) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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