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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: 'read live from the node' discloses data freshness (not cached), and since there is no output schema it usefully enumerates the returned fields including leverage, liquidation price and distance-to-liquidation. It omits error behavior for an invalid or empty wallet and any rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the scope ('One Hyperliquid wallet right now') before the colon-list of contents. The enumeration is long but each item is informative, and it is justified because no output schema exists to carry the return shape.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return payload (account value, PnL, positions, orders). It stops short of covering edge cases such as invalid addresses, wallets with no positions, or limits on the number of orders returned.

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% and the single 'address' parameter is fully documented as 'Hyperliquid wallet address, 0x...' in the schema. The description adds no format, validation or example detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and verb: read the live state of one Hyperliquid wallet, enumerating account value, PnL, positions and open orders. The 'One Hyperliquid wallet' framing implicitly scopes it against market-wide siblings like top_positions and leaderboard, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 says what the tool returns but never states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g. top_positions for market-wide views, leaderboard for ranking traders). No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the agent must infer the per-wallet use case from the word 'One'.

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