get_default_position

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as error behavior or scope constraints, merely restating the action without enriching understanding.

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 short, direct sentence with no filler words, making it efficient. However, its brevity sacrifices useful context, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 tool requires three IDs and has a moderately specific purpose. While the schema and annotations provide structural context, the description leaves the concept of a 'default position' undefined and offers no return-value information. Still, for a simple getter with rich annotations, it is minimally adequate.

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?

All three parameters have descriptive schema entries with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, keeping the baseline at 3.

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 uses the verb 'fetch' and identifies the resource as 'a default position', making the basic operation clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_default_positions or other position getters (e.g., get_discount_position), so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this retrieves a single position by ID, nor does it reference list_default_positions for multiple positions, offering no context for tool selection.

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