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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: per-call billing, that per-call tools do not renew, that stopping calls cancels, and that output is informational only. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose and report contents are front-loaded, then pricing, then the routing hint — a sensible order. The billing block ('Billing period is per call. Per-call tools do not renew. Stop calling to cancel.') is three short sentences saying largely the same thing, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 report's contents (equity, positions, leverage, liquidation distance, history), so an agent knows what comes back. Given only two params and full annotation coverage, that is nearly enough; a note on report freshness or latency would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, and the voice enum's price text in the schema duplicates the description's pricing sentences. The description adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond restating the gemini/grok price differential. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Risk and track-record report for one public Hyperliquid wallet') and enumerates the report contents: equity, open positions, effective leverage, distance to liquidation, and history. The scope (one wallet, public chain data) distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling market-wide tools like tape_leaderboard and tape_whale_prints.

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 after tape_leaderboard or tape_whale_prints hands you an address' gives an explicit trigger and names the sibling tools that feed it, which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It stops short of stating when *not* to call it (e.g. no address on hand), so it isn't a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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