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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses data provenance and trust levels ('verified by their own fills', screened is 'a weaker claim') and temporal behavior ('moves... just now', dex wallets moving the most). It doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, but annotations already cover the safety profile, so the added semantics are meaningful.

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 compact and front-loads the defining cohort before the view list. It is dense but not padded; a more structured bullet list would aid scanability, but every clause carries information.

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 an 11-parameter tool with a rich output schema and full schema parameter descriptions, the description covers the key conceptual dimension (view meanings and cohort definition) that would otherwise be opaque. It leaves cross-tool comparison to siblings out, but the read-only, non-destructive profile is already annotated, so the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 semantics to the view parameter by explaining each enum value and marking smart_money as the default, which the schema does not do. Other parameters are sufficiently covered by the schema.

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 defines the tool's core subject precisely ('PROVEN cohort: Hyperliquid accounts screened for real profit and verified by their own fills') and enumerates six views with their specific outputs (e.g., moves: opens/adds/trims/closes/flips just now). This clearly differentiates traders from generic whale/screener siblings by establishing the unique cohort definition, even without naming alternatives.

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?

It gives clear per-view usage guidance: smart_money is default cohort holdings/trades, proven identifies accounts by trader number, screened is explicitly a 'weaker claim', moves covers live position changes, dex covers on-chain movers. What's missing is explicit routing against sibling tools such as whale_radar or big_catch, so it is strong on context but not on exclusions/alternatives.

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