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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is scoped to a single wallet and tax year and includes a 'items needing review' bucket, which is useful framing, but it says nothing about data freshness, upstream dependency on Hyperliquid, or cost/latency of the call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload rather than padding with prose. It is dense but every clause corresponds to a real output category, so nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so by listing the summary's sections. For a read-only, four-parameter tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly sufficient; only the relationship to sibling views is missing.

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% — every parameter including the tax_year and jurisdiction enum meanings and the sample flag is documented in the schema itself. The description only restates 'one wallet and tax year', adding no format, precedence, or interaction detail beyond the structured fields.

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 the specific resource and the full set of outputs (per-venue realised gains/losses, fees, funding, liquidations, open positions, review items) scoped to one wallet and tax year, so an agent immediately knows what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like get_ledger_events or export_tax_file, which would require reading their schemas.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives, despite three plausible siblings (explain_tax_treatment, export_tax_file, get_ledger_events). The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the read-only summary view versus the export or the raw ledger.

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