positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'List', which clearly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and it enumerates the returned fields. It does not mention error behavior or pagination, but for a simple list tool the core behavior is transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, scope, and output fields. Every word adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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 that a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, scope, and return fields. It does not need to explain return values further because the description already lists them, and the output schema exists. This is complete for a simple list endpoint.

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 0% for the single 'account' parameter. The description adds the context that it is 'for an account' but does not clarify whether this is an account ID, name, or format requirements. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 the action ('List'), the resource ('open positions'), the scope ('for an account'), and even enumerates the returned fields (symbol, side, qty, avg cost, asset class). This fully distinguishes it from siblings like position_get (single position) and position_close (closing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as position_get, summary, or account_list. The description only implies usage context ('for an account') but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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