get_positions

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

Annotations already define a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by stating 'Returns the complete list', which implies no pagination or truncation, and specifies computed fields like theoretical gain. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes: the first sentence lists the key output fields, the second confirms completeness. No waste or repetition.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and the scope of results. It mentions the complete list and specific data fields, making it self-sufficient even without the output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4; no further clarification required.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'every open position in the portfolio', listing specific fields (quantity, average price, theoretical gain). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_position' by using 'every' and 'complete list', indicating a plural list vs singular.

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 description implies usage for a complete list of open positions, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like get_position or get_portfolio_overview. The context signals show sibling tools, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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