get_broker_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little context by framing the result as a current snapshot scoped to a sub-account, but it does not mention response behavior, defaults, or operational caveats.

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 compact line with no filler or repetition, and the key term is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity leaves important context to be supplied by the schema or annotations.

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?

With three optional parameters and no output schema, this fragment leaves invocation details unexplained: expected return structure, market/broker semantics, and default sub-account behavior. It tells an agent the general subject but not enough to invoke confidently without external knowledge.

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%, so the description needed to compensate for broker, market, and account. It only hints that account is a sub-account and provides no meaning for the STOCK/DERIVATIVE market values or broker enums.

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 identifies the resource as the current holdings/portfolio of a sub-account, which matches the 'positions' domain and is conceptually distinct from balance or orders siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit retrieval verb and does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_broker_balance, get_broker_orders, or get_broker_accounts. There is no context about when positions are the right resource to query.

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