analyze_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a default-injection behavior (IV estimated at 0.28 India F&O typical when omitted) and that vwap toggles a hold-above/exit-below filter, but it never says the tool is a pure computation with no side effects, nor how errors or missing inputs are handled.

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 purpose leads and the Args list follows; every line carries information that is unavailable in the schema. No filler sentences or 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?

For a 9-parameter computational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs well and summarizes the outputs at a high level. Edge cases (expiry-day handling, units for entry/spot) are left implicit, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 Args block is doing all the work — and it does it: every one of the 9 parameters is documented with meaning, including 'C'/'P' for right, the lot-size multiplication example for qty_shares, and the vwap/iv conditional behavior. This is a genuine semantic upgrade over bare schema titles.

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 specific verb and resource ('Score an open long option position') and enumerates the outputs (breakeven, current P&L, hold/exit framing). The 'open long position' scope implicitly separates it from market-wide siblings like option_chain, max_pain, and greeks, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope (an already-held long option) and there is per-argument guidance ('vwap ... if known', 'pass a real one when known'), but the description never states when to choose this over siblings such as greeks or strategy_payoff, nor any exclusions for short/complex positions.

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