robinhood_get_positions

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

With no annotations, the description states it 'returns a dict mapping stock symbols to position details,' which implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety (read-only, no side effects) or address data freshness, pagination, or required authentication.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second details the return format. No redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns, including specific fields. It lacks an explicit statement of read-only behavior, but this is minor given the nature of a 'get' operation. Overall, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits extra parameter information.

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 'Get all current stock positions with details,' specifying the verb ('Get') and resource ('stock positions'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'robinhood_get_position' by implying plural (all positions) and mentions the return format (dict mapping symbols to details).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'robinhood_get_position' or 'robinhood_get_portfolio'. The description does not provide context, preconditions, or exclusions.

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