cor_get_contract_positions

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It fails to disclose read-only nature, required permissions, error behavior (e.g., missing contract_id), or any side effects.

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 extremely short but under-specified. It lacks necessary detail, making it not concise but rather incomplete. Every sentence could earn its place with more information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description could rely on that but still needs to explain the return structure (e.g., list of positions). It mentions nothing about response format, pagination, or error handling.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It merely restates 'contract_id: The contract ID' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's title 'Contract Id'. No format, source, or context is provided.

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 positions for a contract' which specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cor_get_contract or cor_create_contract_position, missing an opportunity to clarify what 'positions' refers to.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., contract existence). The description is purely operational with no context for selection.

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