broker_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it never places orders or moves money, and details behavior when keys are missing (returns graceful message with setup instructions), which goes beyond annotations.

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 concise, well-structured with sections for description, instructions, args, and examples. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, read-only, has output schema), the description covers all needed context: purpose, prerequisites, behavior, and parameter usage. Output schema exists, so return format doesn't need separate explanation.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0% per context, the description explains the single parameter response_format with values 'markdown' or 'json', and provides examples. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Read open positions from an Alpaca paper trading account.' It specifies the resource (open positions) and verb (read), and distinguishes from sibling tools like market_analyze, market_calendar, etc., which are about market data.

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 explains that the tool is optional, requires API keys, and returns a graceful message if keys are absent. It also states read-only behavior. Examples illustrate typical usage. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context makes it clear.

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