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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the non-mutating nature ('Never creates proposals') and characterizes return content (dex and assetClass tags, long/short/neutral bias), but says nothing about whether this reads public data, cost, rate limits, or result size magnitude.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and effect, followed by return shape and scope/behavior constraints. No filler, though the parenthetical indicator list is somewhat dense shorthand.

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 13-parameter read-only screener with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope tie-in, output shape (tags and bias), and safety. The remaining gaps are per-parameter guidance rather than anything blocking correct invocation.

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 77%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds real meaning for 'scope' (core vs HIP-3) and reinforces the volume floor and TA concepts, but it never explains dex/assetClass filtering, chartLimit, includeCharts, or includeAllDesks beyond the schema text.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Breakout screener for Hyperliquid perps') plus concrete capabilities (volume filter, rank, HL candle TA, bias output). However it never contrasts itself with the closely named siblings list_hyperliquid_markets or rank_hyperliquid_markets, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives one actionable scoping rule ('Default scope=core; scope=all for HIP-3') and rules out a class of action ('Never creates proposals'). But there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over rank_hyperliquid_markets or list_hyperliquid_markets, which overlap heavily on purpose.

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