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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the order type (reduce-only market order), the execution model (best available price), the configuration prerequisite, and a concrete per-call cost of $0.01 USDC. It stops short of describing failure behavior (no position, insufficient gateway balance) or that slippage is possible on a market exit.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the primary action stated first and prerequisite/cost details following. 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies the essential operating context: credentials requirement, execution mechanism, and cost. It could go further on return values and error conditions, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both 'symbol' (with an example) and 'amountUsdc' (omit to close full position). The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline given complete schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: closing an open Drift BET prediction market position. It also names the mechanism (reduce-only market order through the configured Drift Gateway), which makes it immediately distinguishable from drift_place_bet (opening) and drift_open_positions (listing).

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'close' and reinforced by the prerequisite that DRIFT_GATEWAY_URL must be set. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or points to alternatives such as checking drift_open_positions first, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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