explain_position

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden and it largely does not: it never states that this is a read-only lookup, what happens if code is ambiguous and table is omitted (error vs. best guess), or what the explanation output contains. The only behavioral hint is the ambiguous-code/table dependency, which is minimal for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the usage condition front-loaded and no filler. The terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this definition should explain the domain concepts (source rules, outcomes) and the code/table relationship. It leaves the agent without enough to invoke confidently – notably what an explanation looks like and where table IDs come from.

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 0%, so the schema contributes no meaning for code or table. The description does add one genuinely useful semantic – table is needed specifically when code is ambiguous – but it never says what form a code or table ID takes or how to obtain a valid table ID.

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?

"Explain source rules and outcomes" gives a verb and a rough object, but the terms "source rules" and "outcomes" are domain jargon that never tie back to the tool name explain_position. None of the siblings (import_positions, filter_positions, search_majors) are referenced, so the agent must guess what distinguishes this from filter_positions or search_majors.

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 clause "ambiguous codes require a table ID" is a conditional invocation rule, but it is about parameter preconditions rather than when to pick this tool over siblings. There is no statement of when to use it (e.g., after import_positions, or when filter_positions returns an unexpected result) and no exclusions.

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