list_item_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action, such as pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, or any constraints on the list result.

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it essentially restates the tool name ('list_item_positions' -> 'Fetch a list of item positions') without adding new information, so it earns its place only minimally.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what item positions are, which document types are supported, or how the required parameters constrain the request, leaving the agent to rely heavily on schema and sibling context.

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%, so parameters are fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load and the description does not contradict it.

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 ('item positions'), making the base purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling position-related tools like list_discount_positions or list_subposition_positions, so it lacks 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative position listing tools. There is no mention of required document context (kb_document_type, document_id) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the schema.

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