list_default_positions

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 safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral details such as pagination behavior, filtering, or return format, offering nothing beyond the basic action.

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, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

Given the low complexity, the schema and annotations cover most needs. However, the description lacks guidance on usage context and return value expectations, making it viable but not fully complete for an agent deciding between sibling position tools.

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 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description does not add any parameter context, but the schema already explains that document_id is tied to the selected kb_document_type.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch a list') and resource ('default positions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_discount_positions or list_item_positions by the resource type. However, it doesn't define what a default position is, relying on the schema to explain the document 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 usage context is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus list_discount_positions or other position list tools, nor does it mention the requirement to specify a document type and ID.

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