search_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — result granularity is one row per (filing, argument) — but says nothing about ranking/relevance of q matches or how paging beyond the schema's limit works.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with scope, then filters, then use cases, then return shape. No redundant or filler text; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only search tool with a fully described 8-param schema, the description covers scope, filters, and return granularity, which is close to sufficient. It leaves gaps around how q results are ordered and how this tool composes with sibling search tools, which an agent choosing among 20+ search tools would benefit from.

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 100%, with each parameter (including the AND-token semantics of q and stance/position enums) fully documented. The description only re-lists filter names already present in the schema, adding no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: searching LLM-extracted policy arguments within COMMENT/REPLY/PETITION filings, and gives sample questions that make the retrieval target concrete. It does not explicitly name how it differs from search_filings or search_semantic, so an agent must infer the boundary between argument-level and filing-level search.

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 'Use this to answer questions like...' examples imply when the tool fits (who opposed X, what did SpaceX argue), which is useful. However, no alternatives are named and no exclusions are given — nothing tells the agent when to prefer search_filings, search_semantic, or get_filing_detail instead.

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