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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes real behavioral context — results are only 'revealed' envelopes, only closed positions, and returned in chain order — but says nothing about pagination behavior despite 'after' and 'limit' existing as parameters.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key scoping qualifier ('positions that are closed') and ordering information up front, no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 3-parameter, zero-coverage list tool, the description omits pagination semantics, default behavior, and any selection guidance — an agent could call it but not confidently reason about the result set.

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 0%, so all three parameters (strategy_id, after, limit) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds nothing about what strategy_id scopes, what 'after' is an offset into, or how limit interacts with chain ordering — a significant gap for a cursor-paginated list tool.

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 names the resource (signed envelopes) and clarifies the domain jargon with a parenthetical: 'positions that are closed'. It also specifies ordering ('in chain order'), but there is no verb indicating retrieval semantics and no differentiation from siblings like get_trades or get_prior_history, which plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the way to enumerate closed positions for a strategy.

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