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 description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses the default ordering semantics, that a snapshot age is returned in age_s, and that each row is keyed by account address. It does not mention pagination or refresh cadence beyond age_s, keeping it out of the top band.

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: scope first, then ordering, then filters, then the follow-on routing hint. The parentheticals and '[measured]' tag are compact rather than padded, though the filter enumeration partially duplicates what the schema already labels.

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 and six optional parameters, the description carries return-shape burden and does so partly: it says rows carry an account address and that age_s reports snapshot staleness. It omits the remaining row fields (size, entry price, distance to liquidation), which an agent would want to know before relying on it.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks — notably the sort semantics, since the schema's own sort description is circular ('as listed in the description'). It also names the four filters with example values (coin=BTC, side=long|short) that make intent concrete.

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 verb+resource: leveraged positions of the 10,000 largest Hyperliquid accounts, with the exchange-reported liquidation price. The ordering default ('closest to liquidation first') and the mention that rows carry an account address let an agent distinguish it from get_hl_liquidation_map, get_lighter_whales, and get_hl_account without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit follow-on route ('pass it to get_hl_account') and clarifies the sort alternative ('sort="value" = largest first'), which is the main ambiguity an agent would hit. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the sibling liquidation-map tools, so it falls just shy of the top band.

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