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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds the full return payload — side, size, entry, mark, liquidation price, leverage, margin, unrealized PnL — and notes that the protective TP/SL orders are reported 'right now' with their order ids. That freshness and order-id detail is exactly what an agent needs before mutating them.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first gives the trigger, the second the return contract, with the symbol caveat appended last. No 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so thoroughly, including the nested protective-order detail with ids. One optional parameter, fully documented — nothing an agent needs to call 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% and the single parameter's description already explains the omitted/all semantics and gives the xyz:TSLA format example. 'Pass symbol for one coin' merely restates the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('get_my_positions' → their open positions) and enumerates the exact fields returned, which distinguishes it from get_my_open_orders and get_my_account without opening either schema. The trailing 'Pass symbol for one coin' also pins down its scope.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions ('when the user asks about their open positions') plus workflow preconditions ('before closing a position or moving its stop-loss / take-profit'), which effectively routes the agent toward close_position and set_position_tp_sl. It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not case, so it falls just short of the top band.

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