Check Position Limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns a boolean 'passed' value, which is informative. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (likely none) or error behaviors, but given annotations cover safety profile, this is adequate.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant wording. It directly states the purpose and the expected outcome, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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?

Despite the complexity of the input schema (with a detailed OrderSpec and SymbolSpec), the description only offers a high-level overview. It does not clarify how account_id and profile_id interact with the order, what 'position limits' encompass, or how the validation result should be interpreted by the caller. The output schema exists but the input context remains underexplained for a tool of this complexity.

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% for the three top-level parameters (order, account_id, profile_id), and the description provides no explanation of these parameters or their roles. The only inferred parameter is the 'proposed order' mentioned in the description, but account_id and profile_id are entirely unaddressed, leaving the agent without necessary semantic understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: validating a proposed order against position limits, and explicitly defines the return value (passed=true when no violations). It uses a specific verb ('validate') and specifies the resource ('active agent profile's position limits'), making the purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_against_profile, check_approval_status, or assess_order_impact. It implicitly suggests use during order validation but lacks explicit direction, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without contrasting sibling tools.

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