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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=truehare this is destructive, key for a short opening. The description adds that it is non-custodial and leveraged, but it does not disclose execution risks (e.g., liquidation, slippage, or reversibility). With destructiveHint true, the description should clearly warn about potential losses or irreversible actions, which is missing.

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?

The description is brief and to the point, front-loading the core action and context. It efficiently references a sibling for shared details instead of repeating them, which is a good use of space. The only slight inefficiency is the parenthetical about idempotency_key being optional, which is already in the 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 15 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description falls short. It does not explain the two-phase execution flow (signed_transaction/verify), stop_loss_price/take_profit_price, or the meaning of ip, caller_id, and other fields. An output schema exists, but the description still lacks critical details for an agent to call it correctly, especially since it is a destructive trading action.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions jurisdiction, idempotency_key, signed_transaction, and verify, but does not define their meaning or syntax beyond referencing perp_open_long. Required params (wallet_address, market, size_usd, leverage) are not described, leaving the agent to infer their purposes from names.

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 clearly states the action: opening a leveraged short perp position on Drift. It references its long counterpart and indicates shared parameters, which helps distinguish it from related tools like short_open. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools beyond perp_open_long, so it is not fully differentiated from all similar perps.

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 description points to perp_open_long for details on jurisdiction, idempotency_key, and two-phase execution, implying similar usage. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like short_open or perp_close. The guidance is implicit and relies on the sibling description, which is a moderate gap.

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