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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the output size varies by market regime (8 vs 4) and access requires a signed wallet proof, which tells the agent this is gated and non-static.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the payload description and followed by the two facts that affect invocation (cadence variability and auth requirement). No filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned order fields, and it discloses the auth prerequisite. It stops short of explaining the signing flow end-to-end or error behavior, but for a read-only, gated retrieval tool it is nearly complete.

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 wallet, message, signature and risk_pct are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., it never mentions risk_pct or the default/max bounds), so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb-and-resource ('Today's assigned AgentZ basket as execution-ready Hyperliquid orders') and enumerates the returned fields (symbol, entry reference, stop, exit time, max size in USD). An agent can distinguish this from get_open_calls or build_order by the 'today's assigned basket' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It states the daily cadence ('8 calls on normal days, 4 on defensive days') and the prerequisite ('Requires signed wallet proof'), which is useful context. However it never says when to prefer this over alternatives like get_open_calls or build_order, nor does it name get_access_message as the source of the message parameter.

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