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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: hard rate limits (5 s per query, 60 query seconds per hour per IP), a 1,000-row result cap, the tier-dependent history window (24 h keyless, 30 days with a key), and the 'no FORMAT clause' constraint. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before constructing a query.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the table inventory, followed by the aggregation guidance and then the limits. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would hit: which tables exist, aggregation expectation, row caps, rate limits, and how to unlock deeper history. Complete for a read-only SQL passthrough.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the practical consequence of max_rows ('results are capped (1,000 rows keyless)') and reinforcing that the sql parameter must be a single aggregate-oriented SELECT. It does not, however, add anything about default 200 vs tier caps beyond what the schema says.

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 and resource ('Run one read-only ClickHouse SELECT over Ironflow's Hyperliquid tables') and enumerates the exact hl.* tables available, which is far more concrete than the title. It stops short of 5 because the differentiation from the many prebuilt sibling query tools (get_fills, get_user_summary, etc.) is only implicit through the raw-SQL framing 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?

'Aggregate in SQL: results are capped (1,000 rows keyless)' implies this tool is for custom aggregation the prebuilt endpoints can't express, and the keyless/key tier note gives practical context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over a sibling like get_fills or get_market_leaders, and no when-not-to-use exclusion.

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