Get open positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does state that the operation is read-only and that omitting both filters returns the default view. This goes beyond the schema, though it could have disclosed more about response shape or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences put the resource and read-only guarantee first, then the filter usage. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the main behavior, default view, and filter semantics. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though return field details would have rounded it out.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the schema's enums already define allowed values. The description adds the critical facts that both parameters are optional and that omitting them yields the default view, compensating for the schema's lack of prose.

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 states a specific resource ('open intraday and derivative positions') and the read-only nature of the operation, which makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_holdings. It is not quite a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling and the double use of 'open' (verb and adjective) introduces mild ambiguity.

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?

It gives concrete guidance on using the optional filters and the default behavior when filters are omitted. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_holdings, so the selection context is implied rather than explicit.

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