Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it does not say whether results are scoped to the authenticated account, how the market parameter changes behavior, or whether sorting/ordering applies. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a thin addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the returned fields with zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the fragmentary noun-phrase structure means it never states the action being performed.

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 no output schema, listing the returned fields is genuinely useful and is the description's main contribution. But for a multi-market portfolio tool with sorting and ordering options, the description omits which account the positions belong to, how 'market' scopes the result, and how the three parameters interact.

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 only 33% (only 'market' is documented in the schema; 'order' and 'sortBy' rely on enum names alone). The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap, even though the enum values are largely self-explanatory.

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 enumerates the data returned (quantity, average cost, market price, unrealized P/L, weight, allocation), which lets an agent infer this lists account holdings. However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no scope statement, so it does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like get_position, get_portfolio_allocation, or get_account_summary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_position for a single holding, get_portfolio_allocation for allocation-only views), and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.

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