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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces read-only while adding the valuable detail that coverage spans all markets including HIP-3 and that orders include order_id. The permission precondition ('live' permission) is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise miss. It does not say whether results are paginated or truncated, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

One sentence plus a two-word safety clause, front-loaded with the resource. The parentheticals add genuine payload scope rather than filler. The lead-in clause 'Connected AI apps with the live permission' is slightly awkward grammatically but is short and carries real 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so concretely: balance, positions across all markets, and orders with identifiers. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. No param claims are made that could mislead.

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 resource (the person's REAL Terminal account on Hyperliquid) and enumerates the exact payload: balance, open positions across all markets including HIP-3, and open orders with order_id. That is far more precise than a bare 'get account'. It stops short of naming the sibling get_account or get_positions, so an agent must infer the live-vs-other distinction from the 'live' permission wording alone.

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?

The opening qualifier 'Connected AI apps with the live permission' implies the precondition for calling it and hints at a distinction from other account tools. However, it never states when NOT to use it, nor does it route the agent to an alternative such as get_account, get_positions, or list_orders for narrower needs, which matters given how many overlapping siblings exist.

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