filter_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses conservative screening and manual review for unknown clauses, which is useful context, but omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens to filtered items, permissions, side effects, and any rate or safety constraints.

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 single sentence is compact but severely under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It front-loads an action but leaves the resource and operational context unclear.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to cover the two optional object parameters and the tool's filtering behavior. For a tool with no annotations and vague input schema, more context is needed to call it correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions the two parameters, filters and profile. It adds no meaning about their expected shape or purpose beyond the bare schema titles.

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 says "Screen parsed conditions conservatively" but never identifies the resource being filtered (positions) or what kinds of conditions are screened. It does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings such as explain_position, import_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?

It states a rule for unknown clauses requiring manual review, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools. There is no context about prerequisites, expected inputs, or alternative workflows.

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