get_positions

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It implies a read operation without destructive side effects, which is adequate for a simple query. However, no additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, authentication requirements) are given.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence: 'Current positions with quantity and average cost.' Front-loaded with essential information, no extraneous words.

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 need not explain return values. However, with many siblings, the description lacks context on how this tool fits into the broader set. It is complete in its narrow scope but does not address possible confusion with similar tools.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter. The tool description does not add any further insight beyond the schema's definition of 'Account ID; empty for all accounts.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it returns current positions with quantity and average cost. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like review_positions or get_portfolio, which may overlap in purpose.

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. Context signals show many related tools (e.g., get_portfolio, review_positions) but description does not help agent choose.

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