pacifica_print_positions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses read-only behavior and pagination via limit/cursor, and lists possible statuses, but it omits permissions, rate limits, error behavior, and return shape.

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 definition is front-loaded and compact, with no unnecessary background text. The trailing status list is terse and slightly cryptic, but it is relevant and does not bloat the description.

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 list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core retrieval behavior and pagination. It still leaves gaps around return fields, authentication or permissions, and how this tool relates to overlapping siblings.

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 50%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented limit and cursor parameters. It does clarify that limit/cursor are pagination controls and that history=true returns every order, but it does not explain cursor format, limit semantics, or the account parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 read-only resource: orders for a Pacifica account, with a current-vs-history distinction. It is clear enough to identify the tool, but it does not differentiate the tool from close siblings such as get_open_orders or get_positions.

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?

It gives a clear internal usage split: default current orders, or history=true for every order. However, it does not say when to choose this tool instead of sibling tools like get_open_orders or get_positions, so alternative routing is left implicit.

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