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

With annotations covering only readOnly/openWorld, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the output is unsigned and user-signed ('AgentZ never holds your keys'), it is free, it carries a 5 bps builder code, and it performs a builder-fee approval check as a side effect. These details go well beyond the structured hints and clarify that nothing is executed server-side.

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?

Front-loaded with the salient points ('Free', what is returned) and dense with no filler; each clause carries distinct information. The single long sentence for the order contents is slightly packed but overall efficient.

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 is absent, and the description compensates by describing the return artifact (entries, protective stop, leverage action) and its signing semantics. For an 8-parameter, high-coverage, no-output-schema tool, an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.

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 88% (high), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value by explaining order_type behavior ('limit-first post-only at the best price, with a market fallback, or market') and the optional nature of the protective stop and leverage action, which the bare schema does not fully convey.

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 definition opens with a specific verb and resource: it returns a 'ready-to-sign Hyperliquid order.' It then enumerates the exact components produced (entry, optional protective stop, leverage action) and the builder-code scope, so an agent knows precisely what artifact it gets back without opening the 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?

Cost context ('Free') and the security posture are stated, and usage for 'your own wallet or API wallet' is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to an alternative tool. No sibling competes directly for order-building, so the omission is tolerable but leaves usage to inference.

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