get_subposition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the verb 'Fetch', such as the required document type, how the position is identified, or any side effects. Since it contributes nothing beyond the annotations, it falls short of the baseline.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only four words, with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource. However, it is slightly too terse to be fully informative, which is why it doesn't earn a 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 is simple, with all parameters thoroughly described in the schema and annotations covering the operation's safety. There is no output schema, so the description could clarify the return value, but 'Fetch a sub position' reasonably implies the subposition object is returned. Missing context like the document type dependency is already in the schema.

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%; all three parameters (document_id, position_id, kb_document_type) have descriptive text explaining their meaning. The description itself provides no parameter information, but the schema fully documents them, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource 'a sub position', clearly indicating a read operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_subposition, update_subposition, delete_subposition, and list_subposition_positions by implying a single-item fetch. However, it does not explicitly mention that subpositions are scoped to a quote, order, or invoice, which is essential context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the existence of list_subposition_positions for fetching multiple subpositions, nor does it explain that this tool retrieves a single subposition by ID. There are no usage scenarios or exclusions given.

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