list_subtotal_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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or that the list is scoped to a specific document, making it essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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 concise sentence of eight words, with no filler or repetition. It earns its place by stating the action and object clearly.

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 has 4 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema. The schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but the description lacks usage scenarios and distinction from similar position-listing tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for helpful 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%, with detailed parameter descriptions for limit, offset, document_id, and kb_document_type. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema fully documents the parameters, so the baseline score 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 'Fetch a list of subtotal positions' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's core function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_subposition_positions or list_item_positions, so it stops short of full 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema's parameter descriptions mention that subtotal positions can be added to quotes, orders, and invoices, but that is embedded in the schema, not the tool description. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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