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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds useful behavioral context: it's a 'one-call snapshot' that aggregates multiple data types including margin risk calculation, which goes beyond the annotation's binary safety flag.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, lists the returned data components, and gives usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's output in sufficient detail for an AI agent: it lists equity, freeCollateral, open positions (with notional, unrealized PnL, estimated liquidation price), active orders (resting + untriggered TP/SL), and account margin risk. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully documented. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly omits any mention of parameters.

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 explicitly states what the tool returns: a comprehensive snapshot including equity, freeCollateral, open positions with details, active orders, and margin risk. It gives specific use cases and distinguishes from sibling tools by saying it returns both orders and positions, so the agent doesn't need to worry about ambiguity.

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 use cases ('what do I have open?' or 'how am I doing?') and implies this tool is best when the user might mean orders or positions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use the more specific sibling tools like get_open_orders or get_positions instead.

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