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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: '[measured]' signals real exchange-reported data rather than modeled, it discloses that sort defaults to distance ordering, and it flags snapshot staleness via age_s. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or pagination 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?

Dense and front-loaded: population and ordering come first, then filters, then the cross-tool handoff and freshness note. Every clause earns its place, though the filter list is compressed into a single run-on sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by describing row contents (account address, liquidation price, age_s) and the default ordering. The unexplained 'limit' parameter and absent auth/safety context are the only meaningful omissions for a six-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents five of six parameters (coin, side, min_usd, max_dist_pct, sort) including the non-obvious 'sort=value' meaning. Only 'limit' is left undocumented, so the compensation is strong but incomplete.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (leveraged positions of the 10,000 largest Hyperliquid accounts) and states the exact ordering semantics (closest to liquidation first, sort='value' = largest first). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_hl_liquidation_map and get_top_traders.

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?

Explains how to use the output: 'Each row carries the account address; pass it to get_hl_account,' which is an explicit follow-up route. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as get_liquidation_heatmap or get_top_traders.

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