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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it explicitly frames the tool as an observed read of the public Info-API and rules out three dangerous misreadings (not a signature, not a wallet authorization, not a trade submission). It does not disclose what happens on mismatch or when the order is not yet visible ('bounded' fill history is never quantified), which is the main behavioral 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no repetition. Minor cost: product-specific jargon ('Insight signature', 'bounded fill history') is used without unpacking.

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?

For a complex verification tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the definition should at minimum hint at the verdict shape (matched vs mismatch, what fields differ) and the eventual-consistency behavior. Those absences, plus the unexplained submittedAt and dual-ID requirement, leave the agent guessing on the failure path.

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% and the four required params include a nested expectedOrder with six required fields, so the description must compensate. It only partly does: it constrains market to BTC/ETH/HYPE and ties expectedOrder to 'client-order-id intent', but never explains submittedAt's role, why both orderId and expectedOrder.clientOrderId are required, or how size/limitPrice/reduceOnly/builderFee are used in the comparison.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads and verifies public Hyperliquid order status and bounded fill history for a single user-signed BTC/ETH/HYPE perp order, and states the comparison basis (expected client-order-id intent). It clearly distinguishes itself from trade submission, but never names its obvious siblings (prepare_hyperliquid_perp_order, verify_execution_pair), so an agent must still infer the pipeline position.

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 phrase 'user-signed reviewed' order implies this runs after prepare + signing, but the description never states that precondition, nor when not to use it (e.g. order not yet accepted, wrong venue). Usage is only inferable from the wording.

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