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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety bar is met. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: 15-minute refresh cadence, an explicit "sample, not the whole book" caveat, a $0.002/call cost, and that liquidations_24h are confirmed by Hyperliquid's liquidation marker.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and source, then the returned fields, then the usage line. Dense but largely justified given there is no output schema; the enumerated field list is doing real work rather than padding.

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 usefully enumerates the return shape (longs/shorts, liquidation_bands, nearest_long/short_liquidation, liquidations_24h, coverage_pct_of_oi) and discloses cost, freshness, and sampling limits. Only the invalid-coin/error behavior and the relationship to hl_liq_near are left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter (coin) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the scope as "one Hyperliquid main-dex coin" but adds no format, casing, or validity detail beyond the schema's own example.

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: a liquidation map for one Hyperliquid main-dex coin, with the data source (most active accounts on the public leaderboard) named. It is clear what the tool does, but it fails to differentiate from the obvious sibling hl_liq_near, which appears to cover the same liquidation territory.

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?

"Use for where Hyperliquid positions get liquidated for one coin" gives explicit usage context, and it names a non-alternative (carry_now) for the funding use case. However, the genuinely competing sibling hl_liq_near is never mentioned, so the agent gets no guidance on how to choose between the two liquidation tools.

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