list_discount_positions

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It does not disclose that the list is filtered by a specific document or that pagination parameters (limit/offset) control the result size. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description offers minimal additional value.

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, compact sentence with no redundant words or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, and it is immediately front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place.

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 is minimal but functional. The schema provides detailed parameter contexts (e.g., document types, ID usage) and annotations declare safe read behavior, so those are covered. However, the description alone does not convey that the list is scoped to a document or that required parameters are necessary, which could lead to confusion if the schema is not consulted. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting. No explicit parameter insight is missing.

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') and resource ('a list of discount positions'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling position tools (e.g., list_item_positions, list_subtotal_positions) through the 'discount' qualifier, though it does not explicitly mention the document-scoped nature (required by the schema).

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. There is no mention of required parameters (kb_document_type, document_id), nor any comparison to get_discount_position or other list tools. The description is purely a statement of function without contextual usage directions.

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