Review Strategy Positions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by specifying it refreshes quotes, adds Greeks/DTE, evaluates P/L, and applies rules, and reaffirms no order placement. No contradictions.

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 concise three-sentence paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too high-level. It lacks guidance on how to populate parameters, what the return value looks like, or how the 'decision support' is structured. The description is insufficient for an agent to use this tool properly.

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 must compensate. However, it provides no explanation of parameters like accountKey, clientKey, strategySnapshotPath, reviewDepth, or the complex strategyPositions array. With 16 parameters and nested objects, this is a significant gap.

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 states it is a 'read-only follow-up review for executed stock and option strategies' and lists specific actions (matches legs, refreshes quotes, adds Greeks/DTE, evaluates P/L, trim/close/roll rules, returns decision support). It explicitly says what it does not do ('Does not precheck or place orders'), distinguishing it from order-related tools.

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 implies use after executing a strategy and clarifies it is not for prechecking or placing orders. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like saxo_list_positions or saxo_precheck_order, leaving some ambiguity about exact context.

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