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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it discloses the credential tier required (Builder or Enterprise) and the concrete failure mode for keyless/free-key calls (403). Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the auth prerequisite is genuinely new information. It still omits any time-window or pagination behavior for what is presumably a large dataset.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the definition of the metric is front-loaded ahead of the access caveat. Each sentence earns its place: one says what the data is, one says whether you can get it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining burden — what the tool computes and what access it requires — is covered. Only the sibling routing and time scope are thin, and those are secondary for a two-parameter read tool.

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%, so both market and bucket_size are already documented, including allowed values and the default of 100. The description reinforces that bucketing is by price, which loosely frames bucket_size, but adds no syntax or semantics the schema doesn't already carry — baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: liquidated notional on a Hyperliquid perp, bucketed by price, with a clarifying gloss ('where longs and shorts were wiped out'). The 'bucketed by price' framing implicitly separates it from raw-event siblings like get_liquidations, but it never names them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 — an agent can infer this is the aggregate-by-price view rather than the event-level or summary view, but with three liquidation siblings (get_liquidations, get_liquidation_summary, get_liquidation_levels) the description offers no explicit routing guidance. There are no when-not-to-use conditions either.

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