Short Margin

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that this is a safe read. The description adds useful context about what is returned (short positions with margin fields), but nothing about pagination, limits, account assumptions, or response 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the operation, scope, and returned fields are all stated efficiently. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the essential return data well. It lacks explicit differentiation from closely named siblings, but the simple parameter surface and clear return-field list make it reasonably 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 only parameter is _jq, and its schema description already explains the filter behavior and constraints with 100% coverage. The tool description does not need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific action ('Get') and resource ('short margin deposit details for the current account') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows what this tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like short_positions or margin_ratio, though the 'deposit details' phrasing and returned fields narrow the 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 is given on when to use this tool versus short_positions, short_trades, or margin_ratio, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The 'current account' scope is the only implicit usage context.

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