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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it states that outcome policy (no leverage, max notional) is enforced before any signature, which tells the agent the call can be blocked pre-signing. It leaves out proposal expiry, required permissions, and what happens if policy rejects the order, so it is strong but not complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by unit conventions, policy behavior, and the confirmation step; nothing is padded. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ('size is micro-USDC collateral'), which is efficient but reads like notes rather than prose.

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 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers units, policy gating, and the follow-up call, which is most of what matters. It omits walletId semantics, order-type behavior differences, and what the proposal returns (e.g., a proposal id to pass to confirm_proposal), leaving a real gap for an agent chaining the flow.

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 57%, and the description's unit notes (micro-USDC collateral with 10000000 = $10, quote-micro limitPrice) largely restate what the schema already documents. walletId and side/orderType carry no added meaning in the description, and it never clarifies the marketId vs outcomeId relationship beyond the schema's own examples.

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 names a specific verb (propose) and a specific resource (a HIP-4 buy or sell on the Hyperliquid account), which separates it from perp/spot/withdraw siblings in the propose_hyperliquid_* family. It does not explicitly name the nearest alternatives (propose_hyperliquid_perp_open, propose_polymarket_buy), so the differentiation is implied by the 'HIP-4 outcome' framing rather than stated.

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 workflow context by routing the caller to confirm_proposal after the proposal, implying the two-step propose/confirm pattern. It does not state when to choose this over the perp or Polymarket proposal siblings, so an agent still has to infer selection from the market type.

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