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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description instead adds the semantic trait that matters — results are incremental buckets, not a cumulative series, which the caller must sum. It does not mention limits on range width or how many buckets can be requested, which is the remaining 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: what it returns first, then the aggregation hint, then the two sibling redirects. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (realized-only, bucketed) is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and correct sibling routing, essentially everything needed to call it is present. The only shortfall is no guidance on acceptable window sizes or bucket-count limits, which matters for a time-series endpoint with open-ended from/to.

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%, including formats and defaults for from/to/bucket_ms, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by default daily over the last 30 days' merely restates the schema defaults and adds no new syntax or constraint information about the parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: realized PnL of one Hyperliquid wallet over time, bucketed, defaulting to daily over 30 days. It explicitly separates itself from get_user_state (unrealized) and get_user_summary (range totals), so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Names both alternatives and the exact condition that routes to each: unrealized PnL belongs in get_user_state, range totals in get_user_summary. It also implies the correct use case (building a running curve by summing buckets) with nothing left to inference.

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