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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that the call is effectively get-or-create ('creates (or returns)'), that the result is a payload to be signed rather than a completed action, and a real external failure mode (no deposit on Hyperliquid). The explicit security warning about primaryType and 'never sign a Withdraw' is high-value behavioral context that no annotation or schema conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is created and returned, followed by the prerequisite and then the safety check in the order an agent needs them. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (approveAgent action, EIP-712 typedData). It stops short of describing what to do with the signed payload — which sibling consumes it — leaving the multi-step approval flow incomplete for an agent that has not seen the other tools.

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 of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 ('Creates (or returns) the WakeTrades trading key for this account') plus exactly what the response contains: the approveAgent action and EIP-712 typedData. It does not name the adjacent siblings (confirm_trading_key, submit_trading_key), so an agent must infer where this sits in the approval sequence, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a hard prerequisite ('Hyperliquid refuses keys on an account without a deposit') and a concrete pre-signing check ('check that typedData's primaryType is HyperliquidTransaction:ApproveAgent; never sign a Withdraw'). What is missing is routing guidance — nothing says when to call this versus submit_trading_key or confirm_trading_key, which are the obvious next steps.

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