earn_get_position_rewards_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return-content context but does not explain the [PRIVATE] marker, auth requirements, rate limits, or error 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 three short sentences with zero filler: core action, return contents, prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and keeps supporting details compact.

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 two-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description provides the prerequisite and high-level return contents. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape would help, but the gaps are minor.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully at 100% coverage, including position_id's UUID format and jwt's optional session-token purpose. The description only reinforces that position_id comes from earn_get_positions, adding little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get rewards configuration for a specific Earn position.' It also lists what is returned (reward calculation rules, APY details, position-specific staking parameters), and the word 'specific' plus 'position-specific' helps distinguish it from the sibling earn_get_rewards_config.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Use earn_get_positions first to get the position ID.' It does not explicitly name alternatives like earn_get_position_rewards_summary or say when not to use them, but the usage context is clear.

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