open_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It indicates a read-only operation ('list', 'get') but does not disclose response format, pagination, or behavior when no positions exist. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys both main usage modes with no unnecessary words. It is an excellent example of concise, efficient 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?

For a tool with only one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the two modes of operation. It slightly lacks clarity on the default behavior (listing all when deal_id is omitted), but the schema's default value helps fill that gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explicitly explains that deal_id is used to retrieve a specific position, providing functional context beyond the raw schema. This sufficiently compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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+resource structure: 'List open positions' and also identifies the alternative use case 'get one by deal ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_position or working_orders.

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 implies usage (list all vs. get by ID) but provides no explicit exclusion or comparison with alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this tool over working_orders or other position-related tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings.

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