Get Position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some useful context by listing returned aspects (current value, quantity, performance, market data), but it does not add deeper behavioral details such as error cases, authentication needs, or data-source-specific behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a concise, useful enumeration of what the result contains.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It could be stronger by explicitly distinguishing from sibling lookup tools, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly appears to be missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the symbol and data_source parameters with examples. The description mostly restates the parameter concepts ('specific symbol', 'data source') without adding extra semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('position details for a specific symbol from a data source'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing position-level details (value, quantity, performance, market data) rather than generic symbol or account data.

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?

The phrase 'for a specific symbol' gives clear context that this is for single-position lookups, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_portfolio_holdings or get_symbol_data, or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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