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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a lot about the payload: leverage is capped at 3x, stops are ATR-based, targets are 1.5R, exits are reduce-only, and gating covers funding, momentum, TA veto and sentiment veto. What it never resolves is the most important trait — whether calling it only produces specs or actually places an order — nor whether auth/wallet context is required. The text also truncates mid-word ('and ex'), cutting off any remaining disclosure.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the body degenerates into one very long dash list that mixes inputs, outputs, pricing math and gate logic in a single breath. The description is visibly truncated ('and ex'), so the structure does not survive intact and the reader loses whatever came last.

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 annotations, the description must explain the return payload, and it largely does — a real strength. But it omits whether the order is transmitted, how equity/risk budget is sourced, and what happens on a veto (does the tool still return a ticket?), leaving genuine gaps for a zero-arg, opaque tool with 19 siblings.

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 and the schema has full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 is appropriate; the mention of 'the caller's equity and risk budget' at least signals that sizing inputs come from server-side context rather than arguments.

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 states a concrete deliverable: executable Hyperliquid order tickets with a full enumerated payload (coin, side, book pricing, IOC limit, size, leverage cap, ATR stop, 1.5R target, gate trace). The phrase 'not just a signal' hints at the boundary with akari_signal_execute, but no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the split between planning and execution.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is aimed at 'a trading agent' that needs to place a trade. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not, no prerequisites (account, equity, risk budget source), and no pointer to akari_signal_execute or akari_hl_market as the alternative path. An agent can guess the context but cannot be certain it is the right entry point.

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