open_option_positions_with_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what data is returned, with no mention of side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or behavior on partial enrichment failure (e.g., enrichment_success_rate is mentioned but not explained). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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: a single sentence stating the purpose, a bulleted list of enriched details, and a usage recommendation. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers core functionality. However, it lacks context on filtering scope (e.g., all accounts?), what 'currently open' means, and how partial enrichment failures affect results. This leaves minor but notable gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has no parameters (0 params), and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed, so score 4 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Gets currently open option positions with enriched details including call/put type.' It specifies the resource (open option positions) and the enriched details, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'open_option_positions()' by noting it includes complete option instrument details. This meets the criteria of specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of open_option_positions() when you need complete option details.' This provides clear context with a named alternative, though it does not cover when not to use it or other alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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