ig_get_position

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It specifies 'open position' (so closed positions may not be returned) and 'by deal ID' (input semantics). However, it does not describe error behavior when the deal ID is invalid or the position is not found, nor any side effects. This is a simple read, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is immediately scannable.

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?

This is a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter, and the output schema is present, so return values are documented. The description clearly identifies the resource and key parameter. It could be strengthened by mentioning what the response contains or clarifying that only open positions are returned, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 provides only the parameter name ('deal_id') and type ('string') with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description adds that the tool retrieves the position by this ID, which is useful. It does not elaborate on format, length, or whether the ID is numeric or alphanumeric, but for a simple get-by-ID pattern, this is adequate.

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 'Get a specific open position by deal ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific open position'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ig_list_positions (which lists all) and ig_get_deal_confirmation (which likely gets a confirmation, not a position). The scope is unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: when you have a deal ID and need a single open position. It does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with ig_list_positions, but the context is sufficiently clear. A slight gap is the lack of explicit 'use this when...' language.

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